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
|
