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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DJ230352RO
        YVONNE REDHEAD                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: BE230285OM
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On October 16, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a 
      petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
      September 19, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing 
      accommodations known as 427 Linden Blvd., Brooklyn, New York, wherein the 
      Rent Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent 
      increase based on the installation of a major capital improvement (MCI).

      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 this proceeding on May 5, 1987, by filing an 
      application for a rent increase based on the installation of new prime 
      windows at a total cost of $24,727.31.

      The tenants objected to the owner's application, alleging that the owner 
      did not inform the tenants of his intentions to effectuate the MCI herein; 
      that the old windows were not in need of replacement; and that the 
      installation was performed merely to increase the value of the property.

      On September 19, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
      review finding that the installation did not qualify as an MCI as it was 
      performed in two parts over a 14 month period or done in a "piecemeal" 

      In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the work was not 
      completed in a piece-meal fashion but was done in two parts as the owner 
      lacked the resources to complete the job at one time; and that the first 
      half of the job was paid for and completed in August of 1982 (76 windows) 
      with the second half paid for and completed in October of 1983 (97 

      In response to the owner's PAR, the tenants' do not raise any objections 
      which involve the quality of the installation herein.

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



      It is the established position of the Division that the building-wide 
      installation of new thermal windows, to replace windows which are 25 or 
      more years old constitutes an MCI for which a rent increase adjustment may 
      be warranted, provided the owner otherwise so qualifies.  Work of a piece- 
      meal nature or ordinary repairs and maintenance does not qualify as an MCI.

      The evidence of record in the proceeding before the Administrator indicates 
      a clear intent on the part of the owner to complete a building-wide major 
      capital improvement as well as the financial constraints which caused the 
      work to be performed in the manner in which it was (within a 14 month 
      period).  In this regard, the record contains copies of various cancelled 
      checks as well as paid promissory notes extending over a period of months.  
      Taking into consideration all factors bearing on the equities including the 
      size of the subject premises and the method in which the windows were 
      purchased and installed (the same supplier and contractor in both 
      instances) the Commissioner finds, based on the facts and circumstances of 
      this case and in accordance with administrative discretion, that the work 
      in question substantially complies with the requirements of an MCI.

      Thus, the owner is entitled to a rent increase of $5.03 per room per month 
      computed as follows:  $24,727.31 divided by 60 months = $412.12 divided by 
      82 rooms.  Said increase shall be effective the first rent payment date 30 
      days after service of notice on the tenants for rent stabilized apartments 
      (February 1, 1989), and the first rent payment date after issuance of the 
      denial order for rent controlled apartments (October 1, 1989).

      The tenants may pay any arrears resulting from this order to cover the 
      period between the effective dates of the increase provided for herein and 
      the date of issuance of this order, subject to the attached conditions, and 
      the statutory limitations on the annual collectibility of 6% of the April 
      1987 rent roll for the permanent increase plus 6% for temporary arrears 
      with respect to rent stabilized apartments and 15% of the October 1, 1989, 
      rent for rent controlled apartments.  Any amounts above said limitations 
      are to be spread forward in future years subject to the same limitations on 

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

      ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted; that the 
      Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked; and that the 
      rents of the subject housing accommodations be and the same hereby are 
      increased as herein above provided subject to the attached list of 
      conditions made a part of this order.


                                           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