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  S.J.R. NO. 6346
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FD 430108-RO
                                         :  
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        BENENSON FUNDING                    DOCKET NO. CA 430225-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     This order and opinion is issued pursuant  to  an  order  of  the  Supreme
     Court, New  York  County,  remitting  the  proceeding  and  directing  the
     Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) to issue a  determination
     of the owner's administrative appeal herein.

     The owner of the subject premises (located at 332 East  84th  Street,  New
     York, various apartments) initiated the  proceeding  below  by  filing  an
     application for major capital improvement (MCI)  rent  increases  for  the
     controlled  and  stabilized  apartments  in  the  premises  based  on  the
     installation of a new roof, intercom and landscaping.

     The owner submitted documentation in support of the application, including 
     copies of contracts, contractors' certifications, and cancelled checks for 
     the work herein.  

     Various tenants filed answers objecting to the application.   The  tenants
     assert that the roof was not replaced  but  only  repaired,  the  intercom
     installation consisted of using the existing wiring while installing a new 
     panel at the entrance and all boxes within each apartment.  Regarding  the
     landscaping, the tenants assert that several plants  were  placed  at  the
     entryway but have since been stolen leaving holes where these plants  once
     stood.

     On March 6, 1991 the  Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order  here  under
     review.  The order denied that portion of the  owner's  application  which
     sought an MCI rent increase for landscaping as this type  of  installation
     does not qualify as an MCI.  The "roof" installation costs were denied  as
     the Administrator determined that this was not a new  installation.   That
     portion of the owner's application as requested an MCI rent  increase  for
     the intercom installation was granted in the amount of $4,965.00.

     On appeal, the  owner  contends,  in  substance  that  they  inadvertently
     completed the MCI application by indicating that a roof had been installed 
     when they actually had replaced the parapet walls.









          DOCKET NUMBER: FD 430108-RO
     The owner  further  asserts  that  the  diagram  submitted  with  its  MCI
     application clearly shows that the work  completed  was  for  the  parapet
     walls.  The owner urges that once having recognized this discrepancy,  the
     Administrator below should have inquired further as to the exact nature of 
     the  work  completed.   The  owner   encloses   a   statement   from   the
     waterproofing contractor in which the contractor indicates  that  the  tar
     was removed from the interior of the parapet walls, these  interior  areas
     then "cut" and pointed, new  flashing  was  installed  around  the  entire
     perimeter of the roof, and the entire northwest corner of the building was 
     demolished and rebuilt.

     Various  tenants  filed  answers  to  the  owner's  petition  stating,  in
     pertinent part, that the parapets were not replaced but were  repaired  in
     conjunction with a roof repair.

     After  careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record   the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative  appeal  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 replaced an item whose useful life has expired.  

     The Commissioner is of the opinion and finds that the work on the  parapet
     amounts to a repair, not an MCI.  To be  considered  an  MCI,  the  entire
     parapet must be replaced (Accord CK 530022-RO).  Neither can the  pointing
     and waterproofing of  the  parapet  be  considered  an  MCI.   It  is  the
     position of the Division  that  pointing/waterproofing  (where  necessary)
     constitutes an MCI for which  a  rent  increase  may  be  warranted.   The
     evidence submitted with the owner's MCI application  indicates  that  only
     the parapet wall areas were pointed and waterproofed.  The record  reveals
     that  the  owner  has  failed  to  establish  that    the   pointing   and
     waterproofing work performed at the  subject  premises  was  comprehensive
     enough to qualify for treatment as a major capital improvement  under  the
     standards enunciated by the Division.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of 
     the opinion that this petition for administrative review should be denied.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 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

                                         
    

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