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.: EG430036RO
APPEAL OF
Alice E. Bryant,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: bg430452OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 3, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on May 29, 1990 by a
Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,
concerning the housing accommodation known as 129 East 81 Street,
New York, New York, various apartment.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant ot the
issues raised by the petition for administrative review.
The commenced this proceeding on July 31, 1987 by initially filing
an application for a rent increase based on the installation of a
new boiler and a back flow preventer at a total claimed cost of
$4,532.10.
The Rent Administrato's order, appealed herein, granted the owner's
application for a rent increase based on the installation of the
boiler but denied the request for a rent increase for the
installation of the back-flow preventer, since the latter
installation does not constitute a major capital improvement.
On appeal, the owner alleges, in substance, that the Rent
Administrator incorrectly denied the request for a rent increase
based on the installation of the back-flow preventer since such a
installation is required by the City of New York, Department of
Buildings.
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 for rent stabilized
apartments. Under rent stabilization, the improvemnt 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.
With regard to the owner's claim that the subject installation
qualifies as a major capital improvement, the Commissioner notes
that the Rent Administrator properly determined that the
installation of the back-flow preventer, eighteen months after th
installation of the boiler, does not qualify as a mojor capital
improvement. Section 2522.4 of the rent Stabilization Code permits
a rent increase for other work performed in conjuction with a
qualifying MCI. Section 2522.4(a)(11) of the Rent Stabilization
Code and Operational Bulletin 84.4 (November 13, 1984), however,
limit the application of "concurrent improvements" to costs
incurred within a reasonable period of time of aqualifying MCI, as
is clearly not the case in the instant proceeding. It is the well
established policy of the Division that the said item in and of
itself does not constitute a major capital improvemnt. The
Commissioner further notes that just because an installation may be
required by law does not mean that the said installation must be
treated as a major capital improvement even though it does not fit
into the Division's definition of the term "major capital
improvement".
|
