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.: EG430036RO
          APPEAL OF

                    Alice E. Bryant,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: bg430452OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 3, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on May 29, 1990 by a 
          Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          concerning the housing accommodation known as 129 East 81 Street, 
          New York, New York, various apartment.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant ot the 
          issues raised by the petition for administrative review.

          The commenced this proceeding on July 31, 1987 by initially filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on the installation of a 
          new boiler and a back flow preventer at a total claimed cost of 
          $4,532.10.

          The Rent Administrato's order, appealed herein, granted the owner's 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the 
          boiler but denied the request for a rent increase for the 
          installation of the back-flow preventer, since the latter 
          installation does not constitute a major capital improvement.

          On appeal, the owner alleges, in substance, that the Rent 
          Administrator incorrectly denied the request for a rent increase 
          based on the installation of the back-flow preventer since such a 
          installation is required by the City of New York, Department of 
          Buildings.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvemnt must 
          generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue 





 
  







          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the operation, 
          preservation and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item 
          whose useful life has expired.

          With regard to the owner's claim that the subject installation 
          qualifies as a major capital improvement, the Commissioner notes 
          that the Rent Administrator properly determined that the 
          installation of the back-flow preventer, eighteen months after th 
          installation of the boiler, does not qualify as a mojor capital 
          improvement.  Section 2522.4 of the rent Stabilization Code permits 
          a rent increase for other work performed in conjuction with a 
          qualifying MCI.  Section 2522.4(a)(11) of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code and Operational Bulletin 84.4 (November 13, 1984), however, 
          limit the application of "concurrent improvements" to costs 
          incurred within a reasonable period of time of aqualifying MCI, as 
          is clearly not the case in the instant proceeding.  It is the well 
          established policy of the Division that the said item in and of 
          itself does not constitute a major capital improvemnt.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that just because an installation may be 
          required by law does not mean that the said installation must be 
          treated as a major capital improvement even though it does not fit 
          into the Division's definition of the term "major capital 
          improvement".

    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name