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 NOS.:
                                         :  FI 410362-RT; FI 410386-RT
                                            FI 410387-RT; FI 410388-RT
        VARIOUS TENANTS,                    FI 410389-RT; FI 410390-RT
                           PETITIONER    :  FI 410391-RT; FI 410392-RT
     ------------------------------------X  FI 410393-RT

                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                            DOCKET NO.: DG 430184-OM

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     The above-named petitioner-tenant filed timely petitions for Administrative 
     Review against an order issued on August 23, 1991 by the Rent Administrator, 
     (Gertz Plaza) concerning housing accommodations known as 207 West 80th 
     Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator 
     granted the owner's application for a rent increase based on the 
     installation of various major capital improvements (MCI).

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

     Nine tenants filed the within administrative appeals against the 
     Administrator's order.  These appeals are consolidated herein for a uniform 
     determination in this proceeding as all contain common issues of law and 
     fact.

     The owner commenced this proceeding on July 23, 1989 by filing an 
     application for rent increase due to the installation of major capital 
     improvements, to wit-new roof, water heater and pointing at a total claimed 
     cost of #22,980.00.  The tenants were served with a copy of the application 
     and afforded an opportunity to respond.

     In response to the owner's application, the tenants alleged, in substance, 
     that the pointing was incomplete, and that said work was in the nature of 
     delayed maintenance and repairs; and that the old roof had been patched up 
     this and the installation of a new roof was not necessary.

     The owner responded, in substance, that a new 90 pound roof was installed in 
     1988; and that all four sides of the building were pointed.

     A physical inspection of the premises was conducted by the DHCR's 
     inspectoral staff on August 16, 1991.  The inspector's report confirmed that 
     the building had been pointed and that a new roof had been installed.  The 
     Administrator's issued the order here under review on August 23, 1991 










          DOCKET NUMBER: FI 410362-RT et al.
     wherein an appropriate MCI rent increase was authorized for a new roof, 
     water heater and pointing.  The Administrator determined that $3,782.51 
     should be deducted from the total approved MCI cost.  This amount represents 
     the share of the cost to be borne by commercial tenant(s).

     In these petitions the tenant assert, in relevant part, that 1) a prior 
     order (Docket # BB 10113-OM) denied the owner's application for an MCI rent 
     increase for roof insulation; and that the roof installation herein is the 
     same claim that has been resubmitted; 2) the useful life of the water heater 
     had not expired; 3) it was not necessary to point all sides of the building; 
     and 4) the owner may have fraudulently mistated in its application that the 
     building had no commercial tenants.

     The owner did not file a response to the petitions.

     After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of the 
     opinion that these petitions should be denied.

     Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section 
     2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code and are warranted where the 
     improvements are building-wide, depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, 
     other than for ordinary repair, required for the operation, preservation and 
     maintenance of the structure, and replace an item whose useful life has 
     expired.

     The record in the instant case indicates that the Administrator's order was 
     predicated upon a review of full supporting documentation including 
     contracts, contractor's certification, cancelled checks, and the requisite 
     governmental approval and sign off of the new hot water system installed in 
     the subject building.  The record furhter indicates that the proceeding 
     under Docket No. BB 10113-OM differs from that of the herein roof 
     installataion.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenants' bare 
     allegations with respect to the roof are outweighed by the inspector's 
     report which confirmed that a new roof had been installed.

     With respect to the new water heater the owner has indicated that the useful 
     life of the item had expired by 1988.  The Commissioner is further of the 
     opinion that the tenants' allegations with respect to same, devoid of 
     evidentiary support, should not disturb the Administrator's findig.

     It is the established position of the Division that pointing and 
     waterproofing as necessary on exposed sides of the building constitutes a 
     major capital improvement for which a rent increase adjustment may be 
     warranted.  A review of the record in the proceeding below discloses that 
     the contractor submitted a signed statement and a diagram of the building 
     indicating which exposed sides of the building were found to need pointing.  
     The Administrator's order was issued after a physical inspection of the 
     premises which disclosed that various areas of all sides of the building had 
     been pointed.

     The Commissioner notes that the tenants' allegations with respect to the 
     owner's failure of not listing  commercial tenant(s) in its application 



          DOCKET NUMBER: FI 410362-RT et al.
     have no merit since the Administrator properly deducted $3,782.51 from the 
     approved cost of the MCI, reflecting the share of the cost apportioned to 
     commercial tenant(s).

     Based on the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner finds that the 
     Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

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

     ORDERED, that these administrative appeals be, and the same hereby are 
     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