STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: EF630296RO
APPEAL OF
Justo Romero,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: BL630077OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On June 26, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on June 13, 1990 by a
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York
concerning the housing accommodations known as 2335 Walton Avenue,
Bronx, New York, various apartments.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition for administrative review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on December 10, 1987 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on a major capital
improvement, to wit: installation of a new roof and sky light at a
total claimed cost of $13,000.00. In support of the application,
the owner submitted copies of the contract and cancelled checks.
In response to the owner's application, one tenant submitted an
answer objecting to the increase. However, he failed to identify
any pertinent reason why the increase should not be granted.
On June 13, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the subject installation did not qualify as a
major capital improvement but is considered repairs and maintenance
since the subject installation did not comply with the Division's
Policy Statements of 90-6 and 91-2.
In the Petition for Administrative Review, the owner contends, in
substance, that a totally new roof and skylight were installed and
that this constitutes a major capital improvement. He also stated
that the original contract clearly specifies that a new roof and
skylight would be installed for $13,000.00, the amount
substantiated by the total of the cancelled checks. He also
Adm. Rev. Docket No. EF630296RO
submitted a sworn statement from the Five Boro Roofing and Sheet
Metal Works, Inc. substantiating his claim that a completely new
roof of 9,300 sq. ft. was installed on the subject premises.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.
The installation of a new roof qualifies as a MCI entitling the
owner to an appropriate increase pursuant to long-standing Division
policy. The Commissioner, therefore, finds that it was
inappropriate for the Rent Administrator to deny the rent increase
for the installation of a one-ply roof since it was the policy of
the DHCR that an installation of the type involved herein qualified
as a new roof at the time the work in question was performed.
While Policy Statement 91-2 imposes more stringent standards, the
Commissioner notes that the said Policy Statement was made
effective March 26, 1991, several years after the roof work in
question was performed.
In view of the forgoing,the Commissioner finds it appropriate to
remand this proceeding to the Administrator to allow the owner's
application to be completed, including calculations for any and all
allowable increases.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to
the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator
for further processing, in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
The administrator's order remains in full force and effect until a
new order is issued on remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
