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.: BL610041RT
LINDA ZOPPA & VARIOUS RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
TENANTS OF 500 WEST DOCKET NO.: AE610038OM
235TH STREET PETITIONER :
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
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA