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  SJR NO. 6286
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EL 230387-RO
                                         :             
     1485 EAST 16TH STREET CO.              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
     c/o JMS REHAB. CONSULTANTS             DOCKET NO. CA 230107-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On December 18, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
     Administrative Review against an order issued on November 16, 1990 by  the
     Rent Administrator, (Gertz Plaza) concerning housing accommodations  known
     as 1485 East 16th Street, Brooklyn, New York, various apartments,  wherein
     the Administrator granted,in  part,  the  owner's  application  for  major
     capital improvement rent increases.

     Subsequent thereto the  owner  filed  a  petition  in  the  Supreme  Court
     pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice  Law  and  Rules  seeking  an
     order  of  mandamus.   This  resulted  in  a  court  ordered   stipulation
     remitting the proceeding for a determination of the owner's administrative 
     appeal herein.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has carefully 
     considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue raised by  the
     administrative appeal.

     The owner commenced the proceeding below on January 22, 1988 by  filing  a
     major capital improvement rent increase application  seeking  to  increase
     the rent of rent controlled  and  stabilized  apartments  based  upon  the
     installation of a new roof, waterproofing,  pointing,  roof  and  basement
     doors,  elevator  repairs  and  masonry  repairs  at  a  claimed  cost  of
     $95,198.00.

     In answer to the application, various tenants objected  to  the  requested
     increase.

     The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,  granted,  in  part,  the
     owner's application and  granted  MCI  rent  increases  for  a  new  roof,
     waterproofing, pointing,  roof  and  basement  doors.   The  Administrator
     denied such portion of the application as pertained  to  elevator  repairs
     since  a  controller/selector  was  not  installed  and  masonry  work  to
     eliminate 38 basement windows.

     In its petition, the owner contends, in substance, that  a  rent  increase
     adjustment should have been granted for  the  upgrading  of  the  elevator
     since the work performed was necessary for the operation, preservation and 
     maintenance of the structure, constituting a MCI as defined by  the  Code;
     that  the  installation  of  a  new  controller/selector  was  not  deemed
     necessary since this item was installed six years earlier; and that the






          DOCKET NUMBER: EL 230387-RO
     New York City Department of Housing and Preservation (NYCHPD) has  granted
     "J51" tax abatements for individual components of the elevator without the 
     installation of a controller/selector.

     Various tenants answered the owner's petition  in  which  they  urged  the
     denial thereof.

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

     Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by  Section
     2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent controlled apartments 
     and Section 2522.4 of the Rent  Stabilization  Code  for  rent  stabilized
     apartments.  Under rent control, an increase is warranted where there  has
     been since July 1, 1970 a  major  capital  improvement  required  for  the
     operation, preservation or  maintenance  of  the  structure.   Under  rent
     stabilization the improvement 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.  Piecemeal work or ordinary 
     repairs and maintenance does not constitute work for which a rent increase 
     adjustment is warranted under current and past procedures.

     Regarding the claimed elevator  upgrading,  it  is  the  well  established
     position of the Division that even for a partial elevator modernization to 
     qualify as a major capital improvement, the installation  must  include  a
     new controller/selector, the electronic brain of the  elevator.   (Accord:
     CA  630261-RO  &  CC  730456-RO).   In   view   of   the   fact   that   a
     controller/selector was installed six years prior to  the  replacement  of
     other dissimilar components of the elevator, it is  eminently  clear  that
     the owner did not contemplate the complete upgrading of the elevator  (nor
     did it accomplish same) as part of a unified plan and consecutively  timed
     project completed within a reasonable time frame.  Thus the replacement of 
     door operator, tracks and hangers,  hall  buttons,  etc,  standing  alone,
     constitutes piecemeal replacement  and  repairs  which  the  Administrator
     properly found not to qualify as a major capital improvement.

     Regarding the owner's assertion that it was  granted  J-51  tax  abatement
     benefit for the individual components involved  herein,  the  Commissioner
     notes that the J-51 program is governed by an independent body of law  and
     regulations.  Thus  the  ruling  therein  is  not  determinative  in  this
     proceeding which requires an independent determination as to  whether  the
     installation qualifies as a major capital improvement within  the  purview
     of the specific Rent Laws and Regulations applicable to this matter.

     Based  upon  the  entire  record   the   Commissioner   finds   that   the
     Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  Stabilization
     Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is









          DOCKET NUMBER: EL 230387-RO
     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is  denied;  and  that
     the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is affirmed.

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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