Opinion
April 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).
Giving due deference to respondent's interpretation of its own regulations and the statutes it administers (Matter of Cale Dev. Co. v. Conciliation Appeals Bd., 94 A.D.2d 229, affd 61 N.Y.2d 976), the determination that the petitioner's improvements to the public hallways were not major capital improvements (MCI), but ordinary repairs and maintenance, or decorative or cosmetic renovations, was not arbitrary or capricious. We note that while depreciability of an improvement under the Internal Revenue Code is one variable to be considered in determining whether an improvement is a major capital improvement, it is not the sole criterion (Rent Stabilization Code [9 N.Y.CRR] § 2502.4 [a] [2] [iii]). And, in view of our decision in Matter of Ansonia Assocs. v. State Div. of Hous. Community Renewal ( 150 A.D.2d 583), confirming respondent's determination to deny, without prejudice, an MCI increase for electrical rewiring in the hallways, petitioner cannot argue, at this juncture, that the improvements at issue in this proceeding qualify for MCI treatment because they were accomplished in connection with another major capital improvement.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Asch, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.