Opinion
May 1, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, work on a building does not constitute a major capital improvement solely by virtue of the fact that it is depreciable under the United States Internal Revenue Code. Among other things, the work must be "building-wide" and must constitute "an improvement to the building or to the building stock" (see, Rasch, New York Landlord and Tenant, Rent Control and Rent Stabilization, Operational Bulletin No. 84-4, at 547, 549). The petitioner's application for rent increases on its rent-stabilized buildings was denied on the ground, inter alia, that the pointing and waterproofing work was done in such a poor manner that it did not qualify as a major capital improvement. This determination was supported by the record before the respondent. Therefore, we uphold it (see, Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v City Rent Agency, 48 A.D.2d 129, affd 37 N.Y.2d 837). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.