OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                     NORMAN KATZ,

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:  BI430069OM 


          On January 15, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely re- 
          filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued 
          on December 18, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 205 East 10th Street, New York, NY, 
          Apartment 4C, wherein the Administrator granted in part the owner's 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of 
          various major capital improvements (MCIs).

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

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 14, 1987, by 
          filing an application for a rent increase which was based on the 
          installation of major capital improvements.  Specifically, the 
          owner stated that it had installed a new boiler/burner, roof, 
          pointing, chimney, wiring, pipe insulation, windows and an intercom 
          system, at a total claimed cost of $125,661.00.

          In Docket No. BI430069OM, issued December 18, 1991, the Rent 
          Administrator partially approved the owner's MCI application by 
          authorizing a rent increase of $18.49 per room, per month, for all 
          rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments in the subject 
          building predicated on the installation of a boiler/burner, roof, 
          wiring, windows and an intercom system, which work was found to 
          qualify as an MCI.

          In response to the owner's application, various tenants, including 
          the petitioner and the tenants' association, complained of various 
          defects in the installation of the improvements.  With respect to 
          the tenants' allegations, a physical inspection was conducted by 


          the DHCR inspectorial staff and all defects verified by inspection 
          were corrected by the owner.  The Administrator issued the order 
          here under review on December 18, 1991 wherein an appropriate MCI 
          rent increase was authorized.

          In this petition, the tenant contends the Rent Administrator's 
          order should be changed because the building is in poor condition 
          and is not well maintained, the intercom system needed to be 
          repaired, not replaced, the new windows are flimsy, the new wiring 
          is ugly and obtrusive and other necessary repairs were not made.

          The owner did not file a response to the petition, although 
          afforded the opportunity to do so.

          After a careful consideration of the entire 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 and Section 2202.4 of 
          the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations 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 requisite governmental approvals.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that all 
          complaints regarding the installation were addressed appropriately 
          in the proceeding below.  It is the well established position of 
          the Division  that the building-wide installation of new aluminum 
          framed windows, the adequate rewiring of a building, the 
          installation of a new roof, boiler/burner and the replacement of an 
          intercom system constitute major capital improvements for which a 
          rent increase is warranted, provided the owner otherwise so 
          qualifies, as it did in the present case.

          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 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, 



                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                  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