Docket Nos. CK 610072-RT; CK 610073-RT; CK 610168-RT
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: CK 610072-RT
                                                              CK 610073-RT
             MARY WINKELBAUER,                                CK 610168-RT
             JUANITA RODRIQUEZ and
             ANGEL M. MATOS,                     DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.:  BF 610054-OM

                                PETITIONERS    
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named  petitioner-tenants  timely  filed  Petitions  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on October 13,  1988
          by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,  Jamaica,  New
          York concerning  housing  accommodations  known  as  3176  Decatur
          Avenue, Bronx, New York, apartments 2H, 6C  and  6E,  wherein  the
          Administrator granted  the  application  and  authorized  a  major
          capital improvement rent increase  for  the  installation  of  new
          thermal windows.

          In three separately  filed  petitions  for  administrative  review
          (consolidated herein for  disposition)  the  tenants  contend,  in
          substance, that the owner's claimed costs are excessive  and  that
          the old windows were allowed to deteriorate and were only replaced 
          to further the sale of cooperative apartments.  In  addition,  the
          tenant of apartment 2H (CK 610072-RT) contends, in substance, that 
          the windows were improperly installed or are of  inferior  quality
          and that the rent increase should not continue  once  the  owner's
          costs have been recouped.  This  tenant  also  questions  why  the
          increase was made retroactive.

          After  a  careful  consideration  of  the   entire   record,   the
          Commissioner is of the opinion  that  these  petitions  should  be
          denied.

          At the outset the Commissioner notes that in a recent decision the 
          Court of Appeals of the State of New York has ruled that the  rent
          laws authorized the Division to grant  major  capital  improvement
          rent increases, which rent increases form a permanent part of  the
          rents structure In the matter of Ansonia Residents Association  et
          al.  v. DHCR.

          It is the established position of the Division that t e  building-
          wide installation of new apartment and/or public area windows,  to
          replace windows which are 25 or more years old  (as  is  the  case
          herein), qualifies  as  a  major  capital  improvement.   In  this
          respect the tenants concede that the condition of the old  windows
          was such that their replacement was  required  for  the  continued
          operation, preservation and maintenance of the  subject  premises.
          The fact that such installation was made to enhance  the  sale  of






          Docket Nos. CK 610072-RT; CK 610073-RT; CK 610168-RT

          cooperative apartments, even if true, does not constitute a  basis
          for denying an owner a major capital improvement rent increase, if 
          the facts otherwise so warrant.

          In this respect the record discloses that the owner  substantiated
          its application in the proceeding below by submitting to the  Rent
          Administrator  in  support  thereof   copies   of   the   accepted
          contractor's proposal, paid invoices,  contractor's  certification
          and cancelled checks for the work in question.  On the other  hand
          the tenants' allegation that the  owner's  cost  is  excessive  is
          speculative  in  nature.    The   allegation   of   poor   quality
          installation raised by the tenant of apartment 2H  for  the  first
          time on appeal (which tenant failed to respond in  the  proceeding
          below) is insufficient to refute the documentation  submitted  nor
          may this allegation be considered at this stage of the proceeding. 
          Moreover, the records of the Division disclose no  rent  reduction
          order based on the owner's  failure  to  maintain  services  of  a
          building-wide nature has been issued against the subject  premises
          nor was any such complaint pending at the time the order  appealed
          herein was issued.

          In  accordance  with  the  applicable  provision   of   the   Rent
          Stabilization  Code,  the  Administrator's  order  properly   made
          provision for the payment of temporary arrears by the  tenants  of
          rent stabilized apartments to cover the period between November 1, 
          1987, the first  rent  payment  date  following  certification  of
          service of the application on the tenants, and November  1,  1988,
          the date of effectuation of the Administrator's order.

          The owner is hereby directed to  correct  any  defects  which  may
          exist with respect to the window installation upon written  notice
          thereof by the tenants and the  determination  herein  is  without
          prejudice to the right of the tenants or any one of them filing an 
          appropriate complaint with the Division if the owner  is  not  now
          maintaining all required services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations  for  New
          York City, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative  review  be,  and
          the same hereby are  denied;  and  that  the  order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is affirmed.

          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