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 : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. FE 630282-RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
CHAMP CONCOURSE CO., DOCKET NO. CC 630221-OM
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 21, 1991 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on April 25, 1991 by the
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning
housing accommodations known as 215 East 201 Street, Bronx, New York,
Various Apartments, wherein the Administrator authorized a major capital
improvement (MCI) rent increase for the installation of a boiler/burner,
but disallowed the claimed cost of ($2,925.00) for hallway carpeting as
not constituting a major capital improvement.
In this petition for Administrative Review the owner contends, in
substance, that hallway carpeting satisfies the definitional requirements
of a major capital improvement; and that had a tenant complained of the
worn condition of the old carpeting a rent reduction would have been
granted and thus conversely the replacement of new carpeting warrants a
rent increase.
In response to the owner's administrative appeal one tenant filed an
answer stating that the replacement of the carpet was merely a basic
maintenance function for which no tenant should have to pay a rent
increase.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
For work to qualify as a major capital improvement it must satisfy various
criteria, including that it be deemed depreciable under the Internal
Revenue Code and be of a structural nature required for the operation
preservation and maintenance of the premises. It is the established
position of the Division that painting of public areas, tiling of floors,
wall covering, as well as carpeting of hallways as is the case herein
which is cosmetic rather than structural in nature and thus does not
qualify as a major capital improvement. While certain "cosmetic
improvements" may qualify for a rent adjustment, as reflected in
Operational Bulletin 84-4 and the Code, such work must be part of a
consecutively timed project performed within six months of a qualifying
major capital improvement and be directly related thereto. The owner has
failed to establish that the work in question meets the above criteria.
DOCKET NUMBER: FE 630282-RO
While an owner may be obligated to incur certain expenses for maintenance
and repair, this does not give rise to a major capital improvement rent
increase where otherwise not warranted. Accordingly, the Commissioner
finds that a rent increase for the item in question was properly
disallowed by the Rent Administrator.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
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
|
