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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE 
          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NOS:EL-230392-RO
          Teresa Stavitsky c/o JMS/REHAB          EL-210254-RT
          Consultants,LTD., and Mark Mandelbaum,  D.R.O. DOCKET NO:
                                                  ZCA 230090-OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          --------------------------------------x
           
          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE  APPEALS  IN  PART  AND
          REMANDING            PROCEEDING            ON             APPEAL.

          The above-named petitioners timely filed  Administrative  Appeals
          against an order issued on November 29, 1990 by the District Rent 
          Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,  New  York)  concerning  the
          housing accommodations known as 530 Second Street, Brooklyn,  New
          York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted Major 
          Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases for the  controlled  and
          stabilized apartments  in  the  subject  premises  based  on  the
          installation of a new roof and new doors at the premises.

          The owner commenced  the  proceeding  below  by  filing  its  MCI
          application with the  Administrator  in  January  of  1988.   The
          application was based  upon  installation  of  the  roof,  doors,
          waterproofing,  and  parapet  brick  replacement  in  1986.   Two
          tenants objected to the owner's application stating, among  other
          things, that (A) the alleged waterproofing  work  has  failed  to
          make the building  watertight  and  pointing/brickwork  is  still
          needed; (B) an engineering report (dated May  of  1988)  prepared
          on  behalf  of  the  tenants'  association  indicates  that  much
          pointing and brickwork is needed at this time; and (C)  the  work
          done regarding the doors does not constitute an MCI.  In  support
          of their contentions, the tenants submitted a copy of the  report
          on the building's condition by Braxton Engineering, P.C. 

          The  District  Rent  Administrator's  order,   appealed   herein,
          partially granted the owner's application.  In relevant part, the 
          order allowed increases for the roof installation and  disallowed
          increases for the waterproofing work.

          The owner and a tenant filed administrative appeals  against  the
          Administrator's order, which  are  hereby  consolidated  in  this
          Docket No. EL230392RO         - 2 -

          proceeding for a uniform disposition herein.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that  (I)
          waterproofing work constitutes an  MCI;  (II)  the  waterproofing






          work which was done was performed in connection with the  roofing
          work and it made the building watertight; (III) the waterproofing 
          of the interior parapet walls can also be considered part of  the
          roof  installation;  and  (IV)  the  J-51  tax  abatement  office
          acknowledges waterproofing work as an MCI.

          On his appeal, the tenant contends, in substance,  that  (1)  the
          roof was not replaced but merely had  additional  layers  of  tar
          paper laid upon the existing roof; (2) many of the tenants on the 
          upper floors are still experiencing severe leaks form  the  roof;
          (3) the doors to the roof do not meet fire  department  standards
          as they are dead bolted and do  not  allow  egress;  and  (4)  an
          inspection of the premises should be conducted to  confirm  these
          contentions.  In support of his contentions, the tenant submitted 
          photographs to substantiate the leaks.

          In response to the tenant's appeal, the owner submitted an answer 
          stating, in substance, that the  allegation  regarding  the  roof
          doors is completely false, and that the doors have "fire-approved 
          alarm lock."  Concerning  the  allegation  with  respect  to  the
          leaks, the  owner  stated  that  the  petitioner-tenant  did  not
          complain  about  the  roof-related  problems  in  the  proceeding
          below, that upon examination of the roof two cuts were  found  in
          the flashing, and that these cuts will be repaired as soon as the 
          weather permits.

          In support of its contention regarding the roof doors, the  owner
          submitted a copy of an invoice from the contractor  stating  that
          the alarm locks installed on the fire-proof roof  doors  were  in
          compliance with Fire and Building Department regulations.

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  administrative
          appeals should be granted in part and the proceeding remanded  to
          the Administrator for further processing in accordance with  this
          order and opinion.  

          With regard to the  waterproofing  work  and  the  parapet  brick
          replacement, the record discloses that this work was done on  the
          chimneys, bulkheads, and the inside parapet wall located  on  the
          roof.    Since   the   work   herein   did   not   involve    the
          pointing/waterproofing  of  the  exposed  sides  of  the  subject
          building, independently it would not qualify as an MCI.  However, 
          this work  can  qualify  for  MCI  increases  as  necessary  work
          performed in connection with, and  directly  related  to  an  MCI
          (i.e. the roof installation), since it was done contemporaneously 
          with the roof installation.  See 9N.Y.C.R.R. 2522.4 (a)(2)(ii). 

          Docket No. EL-230392-RO       - 3 -


          Therefore,  this   proceeding   should   be   remanded   to   the
          Administrator for further processing concerning the waterproofing 
          and parapet brick replacement work.

          Furthermore, since the petitioner-tenant raised the issue of  the
          quality of the waterproofing/brickwork in  the  proceeding  below
          and has submitted documentation on  appeal  to  substantiate  his
          allegation of  continuing  leaks  from  the  roof,  upon  further
          processing the Administrator should also resolve the issue of the 






          quality of the work herein.

          Finally, as to the tenant's contention with regard  to  the  roof
          doors not meeting fire  department  standards,  the  Commissioner
          notes that this contention was raised for the first time on  this
          appeal and therefore cannot be considered  herein.   Furthermore,
          the owner submitted documentation indicating that the doors  were
          not in violation of  fire  department  regulations,  whereas  the
          tenant failed to submit  any  documentation  in  support  of  his
          allegation.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is  found  that
          the administrative appeals herein should be granted in  part  and
          this  proceeding  remanded  to  the  Administrator  for   further
          processing in accordance with this order and opinion.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable  provisions  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations  for
          New York City, 
          and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is 

          ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby are  granted
          to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the  District  Rent
          Administrator for further  processing  in  accordance  with  this
          order and opinion. The automatic stay of so much of the  District
          Rent  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.

          ISSUED:   


                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                             Deputy Commissioner









              NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL

          Inter-Office Correspondence

          To:       District Rent Office/Proceesing Unit

          From:     Administrative Review Bureau       Date:

          Subject:  Remand Order

                    Administrative Appeal Docket No. EL-230392-RO
                    D.R.O. Docket No.   ZCA 230090-OM
                    Subject Premises:   530 Second Street
                                        Brooklyn, N.Y. Various Apts.







                         This proceeding was remanded:

                         []  1)  Because  District  Office  file  was   not
          received by us in time to decide the  matter within statutory  or
          court imposed deadlines.  The original order should be  affirmed,
          revoked, modified or corrected after consideration of claims made 
          and/or new evidence submitted or offered  on  appeal.   (See  the
          "D.R.O. Copy" of our  final  order,  and  all  attachments,  that
          accompanies this memo.)

                         [] 2) For a hearing to be  held,  by  the  Hearing
          Bureau.  Your file has been transferred to the Hearing Bureau and 
          this memo and "D.R.O. Copy" of our order  is  sent  to  your  for
          your information and records.

                         [] 3) For the reasons specified below:

               To determine, by such further processing  as  is  necessary,
          whether the waterproofing and brick replacement work was done  in
          a workmanlike manner.  If it  was,  then  it  qualifies  for  MCI
          increases. 
    

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