EL-110404-RT, et al.
                                  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 NOS.:   
                                                  EL-110404-RT;  EL 110405-RT;
                 IRENE     GERSTEIN,                       EL      110135-RT
                 MICHELE CHAFFIN,                 
                 DIANNE SCHARFF,                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                 PETITIONERS      BI-110130-OM
          ----------------------------------x


           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                  IN PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR         


          The above-named petitioner-tenants,  filed  timely  Petitions  for
          Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent  Administrator
          issued September 15, 1987.  The order concern d  housing  accommo-
          dations, located at 89-10 63rd Drive, Rego Park,  New  York.   The
          Administrator ordered 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 the petition for review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on August 28, 1987  by  filing
          an application for a  rent  increase  based  on  a  major  capital
          improvement, to wit - new thermal windows  building-wide  -  at  a
          total cost of $27,200.00.
              
          Copies of the owner's application were served upon the tenants who 
          were afforded the opportunity to object thereto and comment there 
          upon.

          Various tenants responded to the application.   Two  alleged  that
          new windows in their apartments  were  installed  behind  the  old
          ones.

          On August 24, 1990  a  physical  inspection  was  conducted.   The
          windows in the apartments  f  two  complaining  tenants  were  in-
          spected and the inspector confirmed that the new windows were 



          installed behind the old windows  and  that  the  top  and  bottom
          sashes of the old windows are stationery and cannot be  opened  or
          closed.

          The inspection report was mailed to the owner on September 4, 1990 
          with a request to rectify the defects in  installation  that  were







          EL-110404-RT, et al.
          noted by the inspection.

          The owner failed to respond.  

          On October 30, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order  here
          under review finding that the  installations  qualified  as  major
          capital improvements, determining that  the  application  complied
          with the relevant laws and regulations based upon  the  supporting
          documentation submitted by the  owner,  and  allowing  appropriate
          rent increases for re t  controlled  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  The two apartments referred to above  were  exempted  from
          this order.

          Three tenants filed Petitions for  Administrative  Review  against
          the Administrator's  order.   Although  none  filed  an  objection
          below, all voiced the objection raised  before  the  Administrator
          i.e. that the new windows were merely  installed  behind  the  old
          ones.  Petitioner Gertstein also alleged that some of  the  safety
          locks on her windows were not working and that she was never  sent
          notice of the owner's application.  

          The owner  responded  to  petitioner  Chaffin's  allegations.   He
          stated that the windows were installed pursua t  to  Building  De-
          partment standards.  He further stated  that  Building  Department
          inspector's checked the windows after  installation  and  did  not
          find violations.  The building was then granted J-51 Tax status by 
          the N.Y.C. Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

          After carefully reviewing the evidence in the record, the  Commis-
          sioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should  be  remanded
          to the Administrator for further processing.

          The contract between the owner and contractor clearly  called  for
          the removal of the old windows from ea h  apartment.   The  Admin-
          istrator had evidence that this was not  done.   Nonetheless,  the
          Administrator granted the rent increase, exempting  only  the  two
          tenants who filed objections to the owner's application.

          The Commissioner deems the fact that five tenants have now alleged 
          that the owner improperly installed the  windows  warrants  a  re-
          examination of the owner's application and  a  reconsideration  of
          whether the installation  was  properly  done  building-wide.   On
          remand, the Administrator should order a new inspection of the 



          various apartments throughout the building, including the
          petitioners'.  If the inspector finds  that  in  any  one  of  the
          petitioners' apartments the new windows were  installed  next  to,
          rather than as replacements for, the old  windows,  the  rent  in-
          crease should be revoked for all tenants.


          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization  Law  and  Code  and
          Rent And Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is  granted  to
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent  Administrator







          EL-110404-RT, et al.
          for further processing in accordance with this order and  opinion.
          The automatic stay of so much of the Rent Administrator's order as 
          directed a retroactive rent increase is hereby continued  until  a
          new order is issued  upon  remand.  However,  the  Administrator's
          determination as to a prospective rent increase is not stayed  and
          shall remain in effect until the  Administrator issues a new order 
          upon remand. 


          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