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        
                                     



    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name