STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BE 710110-RT
LAWRENCE LIEBERMAN AND DRO DOCKET NO. N-C-86-S-138/188-OM
VARIOUS NAMED TENANTS,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 28, 1987 the above-named tenants filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 27, 1987, by a Rent
Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 232-238
Cedarhurst Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major
The issue in this case is whether the Administrator's determination was
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for a rent
increase based on a major capital improvement, to wit, the installation of
713 Ecker Thermalux Aluminum windows at a total cost of $111,878.00.
The Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) served each tenant
with a copy of the application and afforded the tenants the opportunity to
review it and comment thereupon.
Forty-five tenants answered, alleging that the replacement windows reduce
light and ventilation; that they have half-screens only, little thermal
resistance, and have frame sash bumpers which are havens for insects and
are difficult to open for cleaning. Additionally, the tenants complained
about the painting of the inside window frames, and disagreed with the
count of windows installed both in tenants' apartments and public hallways
The owner, in response, denied the tenants' allegations, and submitted an
independent thermal performance test report in support of his contentions.
Additionally, the owner stated that it had arranged to paint the window
areas of all apartments where paint chipping had occurred due to the
Based on the DHCR inspector's count of the public area windows (127), and
the count of total individual apartment windows submitted by the owner
(557), the Administrator found that a total of 684 windows had been
DOCKET NUMBER: BE 710110-RT
On April 27, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review, finding that the installation qualified as a major capital
improvement, determining that the application complied with the relevant
laws and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by
the owner, and allowing the appropriate rent increase.
In their petition for administrative review, the tenants request review
and modification of the Rent Administrator's order, alleging that
ventilation has been reduced; that DHCR's inspection was inadequate; and
that the window count was inaccurate; and that the windows in the
superintendent's apartment were not replaced.
The owner did not interpose an answer to the tenants' petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section
2502.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations, and Section 8626(d)(3) of the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act. The improvement must generally be
building-wide and required for the operation, preservation, and
maintenance of the structure.
With regard to the allegations of the tenants that the ventilation has
been reduced, the Commissioner recognizes that the installation of new
windows may alter ventilation patterns. However, this does not warrant a
denial of a rent increase, where otherwise warranted.
Concerning the tenants' contention of an inaccurate window count, the
record before the Commissioner discloses that the increase granted by the
Administrator was on a per window cost basis. Since the tenants are only
required to pay for the number of apartment windows actually installed in
their respective apartments, the Commissioner concludes that the failure
of the Administrator to count the individual number of apartment windows
did not adversely affect the tenants herein. The Division inspection is
dispositive with regard to the window count in the public areas. The
alleged non-replacement of windows in the superintendent's apartment does
not appear to have been raised below, and may not, therefore, be
considered at this stage of the process.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection Regulations and the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act, it is
DOCKET NUMBER: BE 710110-RT
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that
the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.