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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET NO.:  EE630191RO
          APPEAL OF
                    ANTONIO NUNEZ
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  CA630217OM

                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 8, 1990, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          May 3, 1990, by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          2058 Haviland Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator denied the owner's application for a major capital 
          improvement rent increase upon finding that the owner's application 
          was incomplete (lacking any contract and proof of payment) and the 
          installation was performed on a piecemeal basis.

          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 January 29, 1988 by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of windows at a total cost of $12,980.00.

          The tenants did not submit an objection to the owner's MCI 
          application.

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the 
          contract and proof of payment were provided and copies were 
          submitted with this petition for administrative review.  Also the 
          owner contends that he did not have enough funds to complete the 
          work at one time and therefore, it was not piecemeal.  The owner 
          sites MCINTOSH: DHCR Administrative Review Docket No. ARL12446-K. 
          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EE-630191-RO

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent 
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for rent stabilized apartments.  Under rent control, an 
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a 
          major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation, 
          or maintenance of the structure.  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 this agency that the building- 
          wide installation of new thermal windows to replace windows that 
          are 25 or more years old constitutes a major capital improvement 
          for which a rent increase may be warranted, provided the work is 
          not done in a piecemeal fashion.

          The evidence of record indicates that the Administrator acted 
          correctly in his determination.  The owner at this time has still 
          failed to submit any contract for the 36 windows purchased and 
          installed in 1986, as requested by the Administrator.  This 
          contract is essential to the claim by the owner that the 
          installation was not piecemeal.  

          It appears from the evidence presented that two separate purchases 
          and installations of replacement windows were made, one in 1986 and 
          a second in 1987, thereby making the installation piecemeal.  No 
          indication has been given that a building-wide installation was 
          intended or contemplated at any one time or pursuant to any one 
          contract.

          The owner has failed to show in some concrete manner that his 
          intention at the outset was to perform a unified and a 
          consecutively timed window installation building-wide.  The matter 
          cited by the owner is distinguishable from the instant situation in 
          that, among other things, the owner failed to provide to DHCR 
          specific details regarding the claimed financial constraints 
          delaying the window installation(Accord DC430267-RO).

          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 denied; and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.

          ISSUED:

                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner
                                          2
    

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