Docket No. BA 430251 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.:   BA   430251-RO
                                             :  
               CARL GLASS,                      DRO  DOCKET  NO.:  LCS  000577-OM
              
                                PETITIONER   :
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
             ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                       AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR

          On January  22,  1987  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator  issued  December  18,  1986.   The  order  concerned
          housing accommodations located at 30 East 68th  Street,  New  York,
          NY.  The Administrator denied petitioner's application for  a  rent
          increase based on the installation of a major capital  improvement.

          The  Commissioner  has  reviewed  the  record  and  has   carefully
          considered that portion relevant  to  the  issues  raised  by  this
          appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing  an  application  for
          rent  increase  based  on  the  installation  of  a  major  capital
          improvement; to  wit-  replacement  windows  at  a  total  cost  of
          $82,000.  The tenants were served with a copy  of  the  application
          and  afforded  an  opportunity  to  respond.   Nine  tenants  filed
          objections.  Several of the objections related to the amount of the 
          increase.  One tenant stated that no windows were installed in  his
          apartment.  The owner filed a response agreeing that no windows had 
          been installed in that particular tenant's apartment.

          The Administrator found that the evidence in the  record  indicated
          that 273 of the 299  apartment  windows  had  been  replaced.   The
          application was denied because  the  installation  was  not  deemed
          "building-wide."

          On appeal the owner, through counsel, argues that certain  "unique,
          special and equitable" circumstances necessitated  the  replacement
          of 273 of the total of 299 windows.   These  circumstances  include
          the landmark status of certain of the windows, the  fact  that  one
          tenant had replaced his windows several years  before  at  his  own
          cost, and the fact that one tenant's windows were not replaced  due
          to an oversight.

          One tenant filed a response to  the  petition  and  raised  several
          points not material to the  Administrator's  decision.   Petitioner
          filed a further response wherein it again urged the Commissioner to






          Docket No. BA 430251 RO

          reverse the Administrator's determination.

          After  a  careful  review  of  the  evidence  in  the  record   the
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be  granted
          and the  proceeding  remanded  to  the  Administrator  for  further
          processing.

          For work to qualify as a major capital  improvement  it  must  meet
          various criteria, including that such work  e  performed  building-
          wide  involving  all  similar  components  unless  the  owner   can
          establish to  the  satisfaction  of  the  DHCR  that  such  similar
          components do not  require  improvement.   It  is  the  established
          position of the Division that the building-wide installation of new 
          apartment and/or public area windows to replace windows  which  are
          25 or more years old constitutes a major  capital  improvement  for
          which a rent increase adjustment  may  be  warranted  provided  the
          owner otherwise so qualifies.

          In recognition of the fact that  there  are  limited  circumstances
          where the replacement of all windows would be  an  unnecessary  and
          unwarranted expense, the Commissioner has adopted the position that 
          where an owner has earlier installed new windows the  condition  of
          which are such that their replacement is not required or due to the 
          special characteristics of certain other windows which are  clearly
          of a distinct and different nature, that the subsequent replacement 
          of all other apartment windows totally at a minimum at least 80% of 
          the total number of apartment windows in the building as part of  a
          unified plan and consecutively timed  project  completed  within  a
          reasonable  time  frame  would  substantially   comply   with   the
          requirement of a major capital improvement.  Work  of  a  piecemeal
          nature or ordinary repairs does  not  constitute  a  major  capital
          improvement.  [Accord. DE110200/1RO].

          In the  matter  now  before  the  Commissioner  it  is  clear  that
          petitioner's replacement of over 91% of the windows qualifies under 
          the rule set forth above.  The petition is  therefore  granted  and
          the  proceeding  remanded  to  the  Administrator  to  process  the
          application  and  order  an  appropriate  rent  increase  for   all
          apartments in which new windows were installed.  The Administrator, 
          on remand, should also investigate any allegations  raised  by  the
          tenants regarding problems with the installation of the windows.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code,
          it is 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  granted,
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          revoked, and that  this  proceeding  be  and  the  same  hereby  is
          remanded to the Administrator for further processing in  accordance
          with this order and opinion.

          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