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.: BL610041RT
                                              :  
          LINDA ZOPPA & VARIOUS                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          TENANTS OF 500 WEST                    DOCKET NO.: AE610038OM
          235TH STREET          PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review against an order issued on November 23, 1987 
          by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 500 West 235 Street, Bronx, New York, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator granted the owner's application for 
          a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the 
          installation of new replacement windows and a new oil burner.

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below on May 2, 1986 by filing 
          a major capital improvement application predicated upon the 
          installation of a new burner and new replacement windows building- 
          wide.  The tenants affected by the owner's application were 
          notified and were afforded an opportunity to interpose answers.

          Various tenants objected to the owner's application on several 
          grounds.

          The Rent Administrator's order appealed herein granted the owner's 
          application, but disallowed $149.00 from the total claimed cost of 
          $107,876.00 for the windows as being unsubstantiated by the record.

          On appeal, the tenants contend, in substance, that the new 
          replacement windows are defective; that the screens were not 
          replaced when the new windows were installed; that the new oil 
          burner is of inferior quality and constantly breaks down; that the 
          new oil burner is of inferior and that they have since filed a 
          building-wide service complaint with the Division.














          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BL610041RT


          In response, the owner urges the denial of the tenants' petition 
          asserting, in substance, that the windows are being maintained 
          adequately; and that prior to making the final payment to the 
          contractor, the owner inspected all tenant window complaints and 
          made the necessary repairs and adjustments.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          It is the established position of the Division that the 
          installation of new windows to replace windows which are twenty- 
          five years old or older constitutes a major capital improvement for 
          which a rent increase adjustment may be warranted.  The record in 
          the instant case indicates that the Administrator's order was 
          predicated upon a thorough review of the supporting documentation 
          submitted by the owner, including copies of contracts, contractors' 
          certifications, governmental approvals, and cancelled checks for 
          the improvements.  The tenants have not established that the 
          Administrator's order should be revoked or modified in any way.

          As to the tenants' assertion regarding the removal of screens, the 
          Commissioner notes that on August 10, 87 the tenants filed an 
          application (Docket No. BH630141B) for a rent reduction based upon 
          the owner's failure to maintain services of a building-wide nature, 
          including inadequate heat and hot water and the removal of the 
          screens; and that said application was subsequently denied by the 
          Division on January 22, 1988.

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

          ORDERED, that the petition for administrative be, and the same 
          hereby is, denied; that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the 
          same hereby is, affirmed.  Tenants who owe the retroactive portion 
          of the rent increase which was stayed by the filing of this 
          petition for administrative review may pay such retroactive 
          increase in installments from the issuance hereof subject to the 
          terms and restrictions on collectibility set forth in the 
          Administrator's order.

          ISSUED:

                                                                             
                                                    JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                    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