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.: HA220137RO
          APPEAL OF

                 Sadie Schwartz,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: GC220005OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On January 22, 1993 the above-named landlord filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review of an order issued on January 11, 1993 by a 
          Rent Administrator concerning the rent controlled housing 
          accommodations known as 767 East 10 Street, Brooklyn, New York  
          11230.

          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 landlord commenced this proceeding on March 4, 1992 by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of a new water main at a total cost of $2,000.00.

          The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied the owner's 
          application for a rent increase since the said installation does 
          not constitute a major capital improvement pursuant to the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations.

          On appeal, the landlord alleges, in substance, that the Rent 
          Administrator incorrectly denied the claimed cost of $2,000.00 for 
          the subject installation since she replaced the old, existing, lead 
          pipe with a new copper pipe.  She further contends that the old 
          lead pipe was hazardous to health and that, according to the 
          Internal Revenue Code, the said installation is considered a major 
          capital improvement and not merely a repair.

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


















          Adm. Rev. Docket No. HA220137RO



          With regard to the landlord's claim that the subject installation 
          qualifies as a major capital improvement, the Commissioner notes 
          that the said installation does not constitute a major capital
          improvement in accordance with long-standing agency policy, unless 
          performed in conjunction with a related MCI such as adequate 
          plumbing, or repiping which was not the case in the instant matter.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner 
          finds that the Administrator's order is correct and should be 
          affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          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