EL-630365-RO
                                  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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EL-630365-RO 
                 BIG                      CITY                       REALTY,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                   PETITIONER     BH-630245-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW    


          On December 20,  1990  the  above-name  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order  of  the  Rent
          Administrator issued  November  20,  1990.   The  order  concerned
          housing accommodations located at 155 West  162nd  Street,  Bronx,
          New York.  The Administrator ordered a rent increase based on  the
          installation of major capital improvements.

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

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application for a 
          rent increase  based on the installation of major capital improve 
          ments consisting of  new  windows  and  an  intercom  system.   On
          December 29, 1987 the owner certified that each  tenant  had  been
          served with a copy of the application and given an opportunity  to
          respond.  

          Various tenants responded alleging defective window  and  intercom
          installation.  An inspection conducted by D.H.C.R.  revealed  that
          of five apartments visited only Apartment 5-M had  defective  win-
          dows and intercom.  The owner was notified and responded  that  no
          access was available to  Apartment  5-M  after  many  attempts  to
          obtain it.  A copy of the owner's response was sent to the tenant, 
          but no response was received.

          In the order issued on October 5, 1990, the  Administrator  deter-
          mined that the intercom qualified as a major capital improvement 
          and ordered an appropriate rent increase for rent controlled and
          rent stabilized tenants.  The Administrator also  determined  that
          the window installation did not qualify for a  rent  increase  for
          rent stabilized tenants because  the  application  was  not  filed
          within two years of the completion date.  A rent increase for  the
          windows was ordered for rent-controlled tenants.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts  that
          it entered the wrong completion  date  on  the  application.   The
          owner states that although the bulk of the installation  was  done
          by May 1985, the final payment was  not  made  to  the  contractor







          EL-630365-RO
          until November 1985 when all  complaiints  regarding  the  windows
          were finally resolved by the contractor.  The owner adds that  the
          application was filed 21 months later and  that  more  money  than
          $1,000.00 would have been withheld but the windows were  paid  for
          by a bank loan and the bank chose to pay  the  contractor  in  ad-
          vance.

          After careful consideration of the evidence  in  the  record,  the
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied. 

          Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization  Code  precludes  a
          rent increase for a major capital improvement where  the  applica-
          tion is filed more than  2  years  after  the  completion  of  the
          installation.

          In the instant case the owner indicated in  the  application  that
          the window installation was completed in May 1985 and the applica 
          tion was not filed until August  1987.   An  installatio  such  as
          windows is considered complete when the old windows  are  actually
          replaced and not when all defects are corrected, which the tenants 
          contend has still not occurred.

          The Administrator properly disallowed a rent increase for  windows
          for rent stabilized tenants based on the fact that the application 
          was not filed within two years and the owner has  not  established
          that this determination was erroneous.


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

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

          ISSUED:

                                                                           
                                                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