DHCR Decisions
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
|