OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EA130287RT
        VANESSA CEASAR AND                :  
        134-37 MAPLE AVENUE                  DOCKET NO.: BB110278OM
        FLUSHING, NY        PETITIONERS   : 


      On January 31, 1990 the above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed a 
      Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on January 12, 
      1990 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York 
      concerning housing accommodations known as 134-37 Maple Avenue, Flushing, 
      New York, various apartments.

      The owner initiated the instant proceeding by filing an application for a 
      major capital improvement rent increase based on the installation of new 
      windows, waste compactor, pointing/waterproofing (painting), watermain and 
      garage door at a total cost of $45,213.08.  Various tenants responded to 
      the owner's application urging the denial thereof for various reasons.

      The order of the Administrator appealed herein granted the application in 
      all respects with the exception of cost attributed to painting, watermain 
      and garage door, which items were found not to constitute major capital 

      In their petition for administrative review the tenants request reversal of 
      the Rent Administrator's order and reiterate allegations raised in the 
      proceeding below to the effect that the $18,900 for pointing/waterproofing 
      is a rough estimate and unsubstantiated by check payable to the contractor; 
      that the new compactor is not a major capital improvement because it does 
      not preserve or maintain the structure and does not appreciably prolong its 
      useful life; and that screens for replacement windows have not been 
      provided for tenants, except in instances where they paid $15 each for 
      window screens, although screens are included in the contract price.

      In answer to the tenants' petition the owner states, in substance, that the 
      tenants' PAR should be denied because they had a sufficient opportunity to 
      raise these issues in answer to the application.

      In response to the the owner's answer tenant of apartment 1B states, in 
      substance, that a detailed response was submitted in the proceeding below; 
      that the new compactor should not qualify as an MCI; and that all tenants 
      did not receive window screens.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EA 130287-RT

      In reply to the tenant's response, the owner stated, among other things, 
      that screens are available and the tenants were notified that they would be 
      provided to any tenant upon request.

      After a careful consideration of the entire record the Commissioner is of 
      the opinion that this petition should be granted in part and the proceeding 
      remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

      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 improvement must be generally 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.       

      It is the established position of the Division that the type of 
      installations recognized in the Administrator's order, including a new 
      compactor to replace one the useful life of which has expired, meet the 
      definitional requirements of a major capital improvement.  In this regard 
      the record discloses that the owner submitted to the Division various 
      supporting documentation, including copies of contracts, contractor's 
      certifications and cancelled checks in support of the claimed costs, 
      including those checks payable to the pointing/waterproofing contractor for 
      the costs allowed in the Administrator's order.

      However, with regard to the windows, the record discloses that the contract 
      cost provides for "half screens."  Furthermore, it is conceded by the owner 
      that such screens were available but were not installed on a building-wide 
      basis.  The owner is hereby directed to complete the window installation by 
      installing the screens in all apartments, if it has not already been done 
      so, within 45 days from the date of issuance of this order, and submit 
      proof of same to the Administrator to whom this proceeding is remanded.  
      The owner's failure to do so may result in the revocation of the rent 
      increase from the inception thereof.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
      and Code, it is

      ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is remanded to the 
      Administrator for the limited purpose set forth herein.  The automatic stay 
      of so much of the Administrator's order as directed a retroactive rent 
      increase is hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand.  
      However, the Administrator's determination as to a prospective rent 
      increase is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the Administrator 
      issues a new Order upon remand.


                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                           Deputy Commissioner


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