Docket No.:  EB 110104-RT, et al.
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:               
                                                    EB 110104-RT; EB 110110-RT
                                                    EB 110112-RT; EC 110303-RT
               VARIOUS TENANTS,                     EC 110309-RT; EC 110311-RT
                                                    EC 110337-RT; EE 120269-RT
                                                 DRO  DOCKET   NO.:   BG   110338-OM
                                PETITIONERS      Premises: 122-20 Ocean Promenade
          ----------------------------------X    Various Apts., Belle  Harbor,  N.Y.

          The above-named tenants  timely  filed  or  refiled  Petitions  for
          Administrative Review of an order  issued  concerning  the  housing
          accommodations relating to the above described docket numbers.  The 
          petitions have been consolidated for disposition  as  they  involve
          similar issues of law and fact.
          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 the petition.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing  an  application
          for a rent increase based on a major capital improvemen ,  to  wit-
          new windows.
          The owner certified that it served each tenant with a copy  of  the
          application and placed a copy of the entire  application  including
          all required supplements and supporting documentation in the office 
          of the superintendent for the subject building.

          The petitioner-tenants did not file an  objection  to  the  owner's
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          Subsequently, the Division served various tenants with  a  copy  of
          the owner's application and were afforded an opportunity to  review
          it  and  comment  thereupon.   The  record  contains  one  response
          confirming that the installation was completed as stated,  and  one
          envelope, properly addressed was returned, it was marked return  to
          sender, undeliverable - no forwarding address.

          Thereafter, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here  under
          review finding that the installation qualified as a  major  capital
          improvement, determining that the  application  complied  with  the
          relevant laws and regulations based upon the  supporting  documenta
          tion submitted by the  owner,  and  allowing  appropriate  rent  in

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants contends, in substance, that they 

          Docket No.:  EB 110104-RT, et al.

          never received notice from the owner or DHCR regarding the  owner's
          MCI application, that the windows were a  replacement  and  not  an
          improvement, that replacement was necessary due to their  condition
          and age, that the cost of the  windows  are  exorbitant,  that  the
          windows are defective, and that the one response  below  confirming
          the installation is spurious.

          The owner interposed answers to the tenants' petitions  contending,
          that all notices were sent by the owner and/or by DHCR pursuant  to
          the Division's rules and regulations giving tenants an  opportunity
          to respond, however only one response was received  confirming  the
          installation, that the replacement of windows  does  constitute  an
          improvement under the rules  and  regulations  of  DHCR,  that  the
          apartment with defective windows was inspected and found  them  not
          to be defective and that the price paid per window is exceptionally 
          low.  The owner alleges that several of  the  petitions  were  late
          filings.  The record shows that all the petitions were timely filed 
          and several were timely refiled.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          these petitions should be denied.

          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.   

          The Commissioner notes that the record indicates that the  Division
          served various tenants with copies of the owner's  MCI  application
          and affording  them  the  opportunity  to  review  it  and  comment
          thereupon.  In fact, one  tenant  responded,  confirming  that  the
          installation was completed as  stated.   The  record  contains  the
          owner's certificate of service of notice to tenants of  application
          for a rent increase based on an  MCI.   Furthermore,  the  installa
          tions of new windows building-wide does constitute an  improvement.
          The owner substantiated such  installation  by  submitting  to  the
          Administrator in the proceeding below documentation in  support  of
          its application, including copies of the contract, contractor's 

          Docket No.:  EB 110104-RT, et al.

          certification, and cancelled  checks  for  the  work  herein.   The
          Administrator  examined  the  documents,  correctly  complied  with
          applicable procedures for  a  MCI  and  properly  computed  the  ap
          propriate rent increases.

          The tenants' contention that the response below by only one  tenant
          confirming the installation as spurious, is not supported  and  the
          record indicates otherwise.

          Finally, the Commissioner notes  that  the  Administrator's  record
          indicates that there was no evidence of harassment or building-wide
          service complaints at the time the  application  was  approved  for

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

          This order is issued  without  prejudice  to  the  tenants'  filing
          complaints with this Division of decrease in services, if the facts 
          so warrant.

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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby  are,  denied
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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