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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: GA210012RT
          APPEAL OF                                           

                      EWA BRI
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.: CJ230092OM 
          ------------------------------------X
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On January 3, 1992 the above-named tenant timely refiled a Petition 
          for Administrative Review of an order issued on October 3, 1991 by 
          a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as Apartment 217, 3099 Brighton 6 Street, 
          Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on  major capital 
          improvements.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petition for administrative review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on October 20, 1988 by 
          initially filing an application for a major capital improvement 
          rent increase predicated on the installation of the following 
          items:
                  ITEMS                           CLAIMED COST
          1. Apartment/Hallway Windows            $ 99,482.00
          2. Waterproofing                        $ 17,000.00
          3. Elevator Upgrading                   $  6,500.00
          4. Intercom                             $  5,280.00
          5. Entrance/Vestibule Doors             $  4,972.00
                                                  -----------   
             TOTAL CLAIMED COST                   $133,234.00
                                                  -----------
          In support of its application, the owner submitted copies of 
          contracts and cancelled checks.

          In response to the owner's application, five tenants filed answers 
          objecting to the rent increase.  They contended, in substance, that 
          the elevator continues to break down and that the locks on the new 
          windows in apartment 115 are defective and inoperable.


















          ADMIN.  REVIEW  DOCKET NO.: GA210012RT


          The owner was notified of the allegations and by a letter dated 
          September 12, 1991, the owner informed the Division that the 
          elevator was in working order and that the locks on the windows in 
          Apartment 115 had been repaired.  The owner also submitted a copy 
          of the work order, signed by the tenant of Apartment 115, stating 
          that the necessary repairs had been effectuated.

          On October 3, 1991 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation of the apartment/hallway 
          windows, intercom system, the entrance/vestibule doors and the 
          upgrading of the elevator qualified as major capital improvements, 
          determining that the application as it relates to such items 
          complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the 
          supporting documentation submitted by the owner and allowing rent 
          increases for both rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments 
          based upon the net approved cost of $115,344.00.  The Rent 
          Administrator disallowed a rent increase for the installation of 
          mullions and for the waterproofing of the back wall of the building 
          since the installation of the mullions was not done on a building- 
          wide basis and the waterproofing was not done in conjunction with 
          the pointing of the back wall.

          In her petition for administrative review, the tenant contends, in 
          substance, that an increase for the waterproofing of the building 
          was already granted under docket number AB230183OM; that another 
          increase should not be granted for the same improvement; and that 
          there are no new windows in the hallways of the building.

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

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.  Under  rent 
          stabilization, the improvement must generally be building-wide; 
          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than for 
          ordinary repairs; be required for the operation, preservation, and 
          maintenance of the structure; and replace an item whose useful life 
          has expired.

          The Commissioner notes that the building-wide replacement of 
          apartment and/or hallway windows, intercom system, entrance and 
          vestibule doors and the upgrading of the elevator qualify as major 
          capital improvements for which an increase may be warranted.  The 
          record indicates  that  the  owner  substantiated  his  application  
          by 


                                       2










          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA210012RT


          submitting copies of the contracts and cancelled checks.  The 
          record confirms that the owner correctly complied with the 
          applicable procedures for a major capital improvement rent 
          increase.

          The Commissioner notes that in April 1985 an increase was indeed 
          granted for the pointing and waterproofing of the sides of the 
          building that required such work.  However, the Rent 
          Administrator's order issued on October 3, 1991, did not grant a 
          rent increase for the waterproofing of the back wall of the 
          building since the work done was not performed in conjunction with 
          pointing.

          While the Administrator's order (as well as notice of the 
          application) refers to "apartment/hallway" windows, it is apparent 
          from the record that the work in question was limited to and 
          entailed the building-wide replacement of apartment windows only.  
          Such installation was properly found to constitute a major capital 
          improvement in accordance with Policy Statement 89-6, in view of 
          the separate and distinct requirement for such public area windows.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                 -------------------------
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  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