OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               GH210131RT,   GH210132RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GH210154RT,   GH210160RT,
                    145 72ND STREET                GH210169RT,   GI210002RT,
                    BROOKLYN, NY                   GI210015RT

                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CJ210198OM



          On various dates, the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed 
          petitions for administrative review (PARs) against an order issued 
          on August 5, 1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as 145 72nd Street, Brooklyn, New 
          York, wherein the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the owner's 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of major 
          capital improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          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 these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on October 28, 1988 by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of the following items at a total cost of $193,500:  
          new roofs for the two building complex (145 72nd Street and 138 
          71st Street), pointing and waterproofing and associated masonry 
          work, replacement of the parapets and coping, tarpapering of the 
          garage roof, installation of a concrete courtyard on top of the 
          garage and the painting of the fire escapes.

          The tenants objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging, in 
          substance, that the owner did not install complete new roofs; that 
          the pointing work was not identified on the application; that the 
          garage roof work constituted only a repair; that the garage roof 
          still leaked; that the improvement to the garage roof only benefits 
          the tenants that use the garage; that the improvements were 
          necessitated by years of neglect; that the rent roll was 
          inaccurate; and that the costs of the improvements were paid out of 
          the cooperative's reserve fund.


          A physical inspection of the subject premises occurred on February 
          26, 1992, wherein the inspector noted that the "walkway roof" over 
          the garage was replaced; that there was a leak stain on the 
          northeast section of the garage roof; and that the two buildings' 
          roofs were completely replaced and in excellent condition.

          On August 5, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, granting in part the owner's MCI application and 
          authorizing an increase based upon an approved cost of $162,100.00 
          upon finding that the new building roofs, pointing and 
          waterproofing, the masonry work and the parapets qualified as MCIs 
          based upon the  supporting documentation submitted by the owner.  
          Disallowed by the Administrator was the claimed cost of $5,400.00 
          for the garage roof and $31,000.00 for the concrete courtyard on 
          top of the garage and the painting of the fire escapes upon finding 
          the work did not qualify as MCIs.

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          cooperative corporation should have used the reserve fund to pay 
          for the MCIs; that the improvements are being done over; that the 
          work constituted repairs or maintenance; that water inundates 
          apartments during rain storms; that prices for the work were 
          inflated; and that the retroactive increase is a hardship.

          In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenants' allegations were not submitted in 
          opposition to the application; that it is a violation of the rent 
          regulations to use reserve funds for MCIs; that the installations 
          qualify as MCIs; that the owner submitted proof that all the work 
          was completed in a workmanlike manner; and that tenants' claim that 
          work is being done over is vague and without basis.

          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 for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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 replace an item 
          whose useful life has expired.

          The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly 
          complied with the application procedures for a major capital 
          improvement.  The owner substantiated its application in the 
          proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator documentation 
          in support of the application, including the contractor's 
          certifications, copies of contracts, estimates, and cancelled 
          checks.  The Rent Administrator properly computed the appropriate 
          rent increases.  The tenants have not established that the increase 
          should be revoked.



          The tenants' contention that the owner should not be entitled to a 
          rent increase because the installations were ordinary maintenance, 
          is without merit.  The work in question meets the criteria for an 
          MCI as stated in Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code as 
          set forth above, and it has been the long-standing policy of the 
          Division to consider the installation of a new roof, conprehensive 
          pointing and waterproofing where necessary, parapets and associated 
          masonry work to qualify as MCIs.

          On the other hand, the tenants have submitted on this appeal no 
          evidence to support any of their allegations.  The Commissioner 
          further notes that the tenants' allegations were raised for the 
          first time on appeal, thus may not be considered at this stage of 
          the proceeding as this is not a de novo proceeding.

          As for the tenants' claim that the owner should have used the 
          reserve fund to finance the MCIs' the Commissioner notes that the 
          owner is not required to pay for MCIs out of the cooperative 
          reserve fund.  

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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are denied; 
          and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is 


                                                         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