EL 430372-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EL 430372-RO

                 BORIS                                                ROSE,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      CB-410005-OM


          The above-named petitioner-owner  filed  a  timely  petition  for
          administrative review against an order of the Rent  Administrator
          issued on November 6,  1990,  concerning  housing  accommodations
          located at 228 East 10th Street, New York, New York, wherein  the
          Rent Administrator denied the  owner's  application  for  a  rent
          increase based on the installation of a major capital improvement 

          The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered 
          that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on February 5, 1988 by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on a major  capital  im-
          provement consisting of the installation of 27 new windows  at  a
          total cost of $19,975.00.

          The tenants were served with a copy of the application and  given
          an opportunity to respond.  In  processing  the  application  the
          Administrator inquired of the owner as to why only 27 of  the  37
          windows in the building were replaced.  The  owner  replied  that
          the 10 windows in Apartments 1 and 7 had been replaced within the 
          past six years for which the owner is collecting a rent  increase
          equal to 1/40th of the cost.  

          On November 6, 1990, the Administrator issued the order  appealed
          from.  The application was denied for the following reasons:

               The owner is collecting  a  rent  increase  for  windows
               installed in the apartment within six  (6)  years  prior
               to the subject installation.

               The installation of twenty-seven  (27)  windows  out  of
               thirty-seven (37) in the building  s  a  piece-meal  in-

          EL 430372-RO
               stallation and  does  not  constitute  a  major  capital

          In the petition, the owner cites two prior decisions of the  Com-
          missioner which authorized a rent increase even though an  entire
          installation was not replaced.  One case involved the replacement 
          of 231 out of 296 widows where the remaining 65 windows had  pre-
          viously been installed.  The other involved a rent  increase  for
          9,100 square feet of new roofing where the remaining  700  square
          feet had been resurfaced the year before to correct seepage prob 
          lems.  Based on these precedents the owner seeks reversal of  the
          Administrator's order.

          The record does not contain any answers from the tenants  to  the

          After a careful review of the evidence in the record the  Commis-
          sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          In order to qualify for a rent increase, a major capital improve 
          ment must satisfy various criteria specified  in  Section  2522.4
          (a)(2) of the Rent Stabilization Code, including the  requirement
          that the work be performed building-wide, unless the owner estab 
          lished that similar components did not require  the  improvement.

          With regard to windows, it  is  the  established  policy  of  the
          Division that the building-wide installation of new windows which 
          are 25 or more years old constitutes a major capital  improvement
          for which a rent increase is warranted. DHCR policy also mandates 
          that at least 80% of the building's windows be replaced  for  the
          installation to qualify for an  MCI  rent  increase  (Accord:  DE

          In the instant case, it is undisputed that the  installation  for
          which the owner sought a rent increase constituted replacement of 
          only 27 of the 37 windows or 73%  of  the  entire  building,  the
          other 10 windows having been replaced within the past six  years.
          Given the number and percentage  of  windows  installed  and  the
          protracted time period involved this installation is clearly of a 

          piecemeal nature rather than a building-wide improvement and  the
          Administrator properly concluded that it did constitute  a  major
          capital improvement.

          Any rent increase for the windows can only be  collected  by  the
          owner pursuant to Section 2522.4(a)(1) of the Rent  Stabilization
          Code which permits an increase for new equipment or  improvements
          in a tenant's housing accommodation on  written  consent  to  the
          rent increase if the owner  herein  has  actually  obtained  such

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied

          EL 430372-RO
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


                                                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