DHCR Decisions                                  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.:  DA430081RO          APPEAL OF                   POMEROY COMPANY                                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:  BH430079OM          ------------------------------------X            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW          On January 11, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued          on December 7, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing          accommodations known as 524 West 123rd Street, New York, New York,          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major          capital improvement (MCI).          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 this administrative appeal.          The owner commenced this proceeding on August 7, 1987, by filing an          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the          following MCIs at a total cost of $ 3,057.00:                    a) new sidewalk;                                    b) pressure-wash facade; and                                    c) paint and/or repair                                 1.  cornice                                                                 2.  bay windows                       3.  floor and stoop                              On December 7, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here          under review finding that the installations did not qualify as MCIs          as they are considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of          the structure.          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that according          to DHCR precedent set by administrative appeal Docket No. CPTA          22,191 which denied a tenant's PAR against an order granting an          increase for a new sidewalk, the installation herein should also          qualify for a rent increase; and that DHCRs departure from said          precedent is arbitrary and capricious.          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.  DA430081RO          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.          The evidence of record indicates that, with respect to the sidewalk          installation, this item was properly disallowed since it does not          qualify as an MCI under the present Rent Stabilization Code          (CJ230108RO).  The DHCR has previously ruled (as early as 1985,          prior to the time the work in question was performed) that such          item, as distinguished from resurfacing the entire court yard and          walkways  within the property line, is not a depreciable expense          and does not qualify as an MCI (BJ430076RO; ARL1810Q; BJ430022RO).            The Commissioner further notes that in the proceeding under Docket          No. CPTA 22,191, cited by the owner on appeal, the Rent          Administrator's order referred to therein and the administrative          appeal was filed well before the effective date of Operational          Bulletin 84-4, which established certain uniform standards          applicable to both rent controlled  and rent stabilized buildings,          including the requirement that an installation be deemed          depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code in order to constitute          an MCI.  Similarly, the facade work does not constitute an MCI but          is considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of the          structure for which an MCI rent increase is not warranted.          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations; and          Operational Bulletin 84-4, it is          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,          affirmed.                                                                              ISSUED:                                                                                                                            JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                                  Deputy Commissioner                               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.:  DA430081RO          APPEAL OF                   POMEROY COMPANY                                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:  BH430079OM          ------------------------------------X            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW          On January 11, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued          on December 7, 1988, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing          accommodations known as 524 West 123rd Street, New York, New York,          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major          capital improvement (MCI).          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 this administrative appeal.          The owner commenced this proceeding on August 7, 1987, by filing an          application for a rent increase based on the installation of the          following MCIs at a total cost of $ 3,057.00:                    a) new sidewalk;                                    b) pressure-wash facade; and                                    c) paint and/or repair                                 1.  cornice                                                                 2.  bay windows                       3.  floor and stoop                              On December 7, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here          under review finding that the installations did not qualify as MCIs          as they are considered to be ordinary repairs and/or maintenance of          the structure.          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that according          to DHCR precedent set by administrative appeal Docket No. CPTA          22,191 which denied a tenant's PAR against an order granting an          increase for a new sidewalk, the installation herein should also          qualify for a rent increase; and that DHCRs departure from said          precedent is arbitrary and capricious.          ADMIN.  REVIEW DOCKET NO.  DA430081RO          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.          The evidence of record indicates that, with respect to the sidewalk          installation, this item was properly disallowed since it does not          qualify as an MCI under the present Rent Stabilization Code          (CJ230108RO) and the DHCR has previously ruled that such item,          outside the property line, is not a depreciable expense pursuant to            Operational Bulletin 84-4 effective as of November 13, 1984          (approximately 4 years prior to the date the owner's appeal was          filed).  (BJ430076RO; ARL1810Q; BJ430022RO).  Similarly, the facade          work does not constitute an MCI but is considered to be ordinary          repairs and/or maintenance of the structure for which an MCI rent          increase is not warranted.          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations; and          Operational Bulletin 84-4, it is          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,          affirmed.                                                                              ISSUED:                                                                                                                            JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                                  Deputy Commissioner