OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:DA 630046-RO
        GILDIN MANAGEMENT CO.             :  
           FOR                               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        HENRY HUDSON EQUITIES CO.,           DOCKET NO.:CE 630214-OM
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On January 17, 1989 the above-named petitioner-owner/sponsor filed an 
      administrative appeal against an order issued on December 22, 1988 by the 
      Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning 
      the housing accommodations known as 2711 Henry Hudson Parkway, Bronx, New 
      York, Various apartments, wherein the Administrator denied major capital 
      improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized apartments in the 
      subject premises based on the installation of new windows.

      The owner/sponsor commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI 
      application in May, 1988.  The owner indicated in its application that the 
      subject building is a cooperative (co-op), that it is the holder of the 
      unsold shares and that a total of 641 windows (620 apartment windows and 21 
      windows in public areas) at the premises had been installed as follows:

                a)  248 windows installed in 20 apartments (1 occupied
                    by a stabilized tenant) by Ecker Manufacturing    
                    Corp. commencing December 11, 1985 and ending 
                    March 7, 1986.  The owner/sponsor indicated
                    that the resident-owners paid for the windows
                    installed in their apartments, that the 
                    stabilized tenant paid a "voluntary increase"
                    for the window installation therein and that 
                    it was not requesting a rent increase for said    

                b)  16 windows installed in 1 professional apartment by
                    County Engineering Co. in July 1987 and paid for by
                    the individual owner of said apartment.  The owner 
                    indicated that it was not requesting a rent 
                    increase for this work.

                c)  377 windows installed in 30 apartments, of which 22
                    are occupied by stabilized tenants, and in the     
                    public areas by Miller Stormguard Corp., 
                    commencing December 1, 1987 and ending December 9, 1987.
                    The owner indicated that it was only requesting a 
                    rent increase for the windows installed in the 
                    aforementioned 22 apartments.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DA 630046-RO

      The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied MCI rent increases 
      based on a determination that the window installation was completed in 
      stages over a two year period by three different contractors.

      In its petition the owner contends that the improvement was building-wide; 
      that the cost is being depreciated; that there is nothing in the Law of 
      Code to preclude the work being done in stages and by more than one 
      contractor; and that one of the contractors performed the work in one 
      professional apartment only and at the occupant's expense in conjunction 
      with an alteration.

      Various tenants submitted responses to the petition alleging, in substance, 
      that the Administrator's order should be affirmed.

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

      Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by Section 
      2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized apartments.  
      Under rent stabilization, the improvement must generally be building-wide; 
      depreciable under the Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary 
      repairs; required for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the 
      structure; and replace an item whose useful life has expired.

      It is the established position of the Division that the building-wide 
      installation of new apartment windows 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 this respect, the Commissioner notes 
      that work of a piecemeal nature or ordinary repairs and maintenance does 
      not qualify as a major capital improvement.

      The Commissioner is of the opinion that at the time the work was initially 
      commenced the owner/sponsor did not fully intend to install new windows on 
      a building-wide basis at the premises.  The window work was performed in 
      three separate installations over a two year period by three different 
      contractors.  The Commissioner notes that the owner/sponsor submitted with 
      its application a copy of a letter dated August 31, 1987 and addressed to 
      the shareholders which states:

                "After numerous Board of Directors meetings, a decision 
                has been reached to the effect that the cooperative 
                would look considerably better if all new windows were 
                installed.  We anticipate the project to begin in 
                October and be completed by year-end."

      The record reveals that at the time this letter was written 264 windows or 
      41% of the 641 total windows at the premises had already been replaced in 
      two separate installations that were conducted over a year apart.  The 
      subsequent decision of the owner/sponsor to commence a "project" which upon 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DA 630046-RO

      comp1etion signified that all of the windows had been replaced albeit not 
      in one installation is not sufficient to fulfill the building-wide 
      requirement of Section 2522.4 of the Code.

      The Commissioner further notes that although the owner/sponsor indicated 
      that the resident-owners paid for the windows installed in their respective 

      apartments, said installation indicated above under a), the record reveals 
      that the costs therefor were partially paid by the owner/sponsor, as 
      evidenced by a copy of a cancelled check (no. 8274) made out by the 
      owner/sponsor to Ecker Manufacturing Corp.  Although the record indicates 
      that the owner/sponsor was involved in this initial installation, the 
      owner/sponsor has failed to show that the intention at the outset was to 
      perform a unified and consecutively timed building-wide window 
      installation.  The Commissioner finds that the window installation herein 
      was of a piecemeal nature and that the Administrator properly denied an MCI 
      rent increase for the subject premises for this work.

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

      ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and the 
      order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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