ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 630192 - 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  S.J.R. NO. 5798 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FA 630192  -  RO
                                                         
                                              :     D.R.O.    DOCKET     NO.
                                                 DD 630141-OM
                                                  
           212           EAST           182ND           ST.            CORP.
                                                                       
                                 PETITIONER   :  
          ------------------------------------X 

           ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On January 23, 1991 the above-named petitioner-owner filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          December 18, 1990 by the  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known as 212 
          East 182nd Street, Bronx, New York,  various  apartments,  wherein
          the Administrator authorized  a  major  capital  improvement  rent
          increase based on the installation of new windows.  Said  increase
          was applicable solely to rent controlled apartments. 

               Thereafter the owner commenced a proceeding  in  the  Supreme
          Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and  Rules,
          having deemed its petition  denied  by  operation  of  law.   This
          resulted in a court ordered stipulation remanding this  proceeding
          to the Division for further consideration.  

               The instant matter stems from an application refiled with the 
          Division on April 24, 1989 predicated  upon  the  installation  of
          various claimed  major  capital  improvements  including  elevator
          upgrading and new windows stated to be completed  in  March  1987.
          In  support  of  the  application  the  owner  submitted   various
          documentation  including  contractor's  certifications,  cancelled
          checks and various invoices for the elevator work, to wit:

               June 11 - Emergency Call - Replace intra selector to existing 
                         circuits ($1,586.13)
               June 19 - Respond to emergency call -  Replace  new  magnetic
                      unit ($789.34)
               June  14  -  Replace  shaftway  vanes   and   magnetic   unit
              ($2,565.53).

               The order of the  Administrator  appealed  herein  determined
          that the claimed elevator upgrading did not  qualify  as  a  major
          capital improvement; and that the window installation did not 


          qualify for a  rent  increase  with  respect  to  rent  stabilized
          apartments since the application was not filed within two years of 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 630192 - RO
          the completion  date.   A  rent  increase  was  granted  for  rent
          controlled apartments since the  two  year  restriction  does  not
          exist under the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New  York  City.
          Other claimed work, disallowed by the Administrator, is  not  here
          at issue.

               In  this  petition  for  administrative  review   the   owner
          contends, in substance, that it entered the wrong completion  date
          with respect to the windows; and  that  while  most  windows  were
          installed by March 1987, the installation was not completed  until
          June of that year due to the lack of access and the need  to  make
          final  repairs  and  adjustments  as  reflected  in  an   attached
          statement from the contractor dated January 18,1991.  In  addition
          the owner  questions  why  an  increase  was  disallowed  for  the
          elevator  upgrading  which  entailed,  among  other   things   the
          installation of a new selector to the existing  controller,  since
          the work was completed within the two year time limit.   

               After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  record,  the
          Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  proceeding  should  be
          remanded to the  Rent  Administrator  for  further  processing  in
          accordance with this order and opinion.

               Regarding the claimed elevator  upgrading,  it  is  the  well
          established position of the Division, as it was the policy of  the
          Conciliation and Appeals Board and the New  York  City  Office  of
          Rent  Control,  the  predecessor   agencies   charged   with   the
          administration of the Rent Laws, Code and Regulations, that for  a
          partial elevator modernization (upgrading) to qualify as  a  major
          capital  improvement  the  installation   must   include   a   new
          controller/selector,  the  electronic  brain  of   the   elevator.
          (Accord:  ARL 9558-Q).  The replacement of the selector  alone  as
          well as various hoistway vanes and magnets, as evidenced by  three
          separate   invoices,   constitute   repairs   items   which    the
          Administrator properly found not to qualify  as  a  major  capital
          improvement.   It  is  significant  to  note  that   neither   the
          contractor nor the owner considered these elevator repairs a major 
          capital improvement since sales tax  was  both  charged  and  paid
          thereon.  

               With respect to the  windows,  the  owner  specified  in  its
          application and the invoices submitted in support thereof  provide
          that the work was "completed" in March 1987.  An installation such 
          as windows is  considered  completed  when  the  old  windows  are
          actually  replaced  and  not  when  all  defects  are   corrected.
          (Accord:  EL 630365-RO).

               While the disallowance of this item appears to be  predicated
          on the fact that the instant application was filed  on  April  24,
          1989 (beyond the two year limit  for  stabilized  apartments)  the
          record discloses that the instant application was initially  filed
          with the Division on March 22, 1989; and that said application was 


          rejected, on other grounds, by notice dated April 7, 1989 with the 
          proviso that "You have twenty (20) days to refile your application
          without prejudice to any  filing  deadlines."   Since  the  record
          discloses that the instant application was refiled  on  April  24,
          1989, within the 20 day grace period, the  Commissioner  deems  it






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 630192 - RO
          appropriate to remand this proceeding to  the  Rent  Administrator
          for such further  processing  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  with
          respect to such portion of the application as pertains to windows. 
          Upon the remand the Administrator should consider such allegations 
          and contentions of the tenants as were raised  in  the  proceeding
          below and such allegations as may be raised upon the  remand  with
          respect to the quality of the work performed.   

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

               ORDERED, that this  petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is
          granted to the extent of remanding this  proceeding  to  the  Rent
          Administrator for further processing in accordance with this order 
          and opinion.  The order of the Rent Administrator remains in  full
          force and effect until a new order is issued upon the remand.  

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner



                                          



































          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 630192 - RO

    

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