DOCKET NO.: AL 230075 RO
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
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: AL 230075 RO
HAROLD HALL ASSOC. c/o D.R.O. DOCKET NO.
REHAB ASSOC., ZKCS 000544 OM
PETITIONER
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
On December 5, 1986 the above-named petitioner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on November 13,
1986 by the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,
New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 9031
Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Various Apartments,
wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for
Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases for the controlled
and stabilized apartments in the subject premises.
The petitioner commenced the proceeding below by filing its
MCI application with the Administrator in May of 1985. The
application was based on the installation of new windows. In
support of its application, the owner submitted (among other
things) certifications from three different contractors for the
installation in question. These certifications indicate that
(out of a total of 448 windows in all apartments) 124 windows
were completely installed in November of 1981, 324 in May and
October of 1983, and 53 in December of 1983. In addition, the
record indicates that thirty two bathroom windows were installed
in the spring of 1984. Various tenants objected to the owner's
application stating, among other things, that the new windows are
defective.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
stated that the installation of the windows herein was not
building-wide in that it was performed in piecemeal fashion by
three different contractors over a period of 2 1/4 Years.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that
(I) the window installation was performed building-wide in that
all windows were installed in all apartments; (II) although the
overall physical installation took 2 1/4 years, the start dates
between each improvement were only ten and eleven months apart,
DOCKET NO.: AL 230075 RO
and the dates of the first and last contracts for the windows
were only one year nine months apart; (III) the primary reason
for the time lapse was that three window contracts were performed
by three different contractors for three different owners due to
three changes in ownership during the course of the window
installation.
In response to the owner's appeal, various tenants filed
answers stating, among other things, that the owner is not
entitled to rent increases for unnecessarily prolonged and
defective work done in replacing the windows.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that under certain circumstances, an
installation which was intended to be building-wide can qualify
as an MCI even if certain components of the installation could
not be completed at the same time. However, in the present case,
the record (including the separate contracts, proposals, and
invoices) indicates that the installation herein was done in a
piecemeal fashion and there is no indication that a building-wide
installation was intended to be completed at any one time or
pursuant to any one contract.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found
that the Administrator's order was correct and should be
affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of
the Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrative appeal be, and the same
hereby is denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
