STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
ROBERT E. SUNSHINE, et al.,
PETITIONERS BI 210002-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 13, 1991, the above-named tenant representative filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on April
24, 1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning t e housing accom-
modation, known as 2790 Bragg Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein
the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to
a rent increase based on 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 September 1, 1987 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on a major cap-
ital improvement, to wit - new windows at a total cost of
The owner certified that on October 28, 1987 it served each
tenant with a copy of the application and placed a copy of the
entire application including all requir d supplements and sup-
porting documentation with the resident superintendent of the
Twenty tenants filed objections to the owner's application in
opposition to any rent increase.
On April 24, 1991, 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
documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate
rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant represent-
ative requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and
alleges in substance that the installation of new windows
constitutes maintenance rather than a major capital improvement
and that the tenants were not afforded an opportunity to comment.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the windows which were replaced were
twenty-six years old and had exceeded their useful life.
Although the tenant representative alleges that the tenants were
not afforded an opportunity to comment, this allegation is belied
by the comments of twenty tenants which are contained in the
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. 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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly
complied with the application procedures for a major capital
improvement and the Rent Administrator properly computed the
appropriate rent increases. The tenant has not established that
the increase should be revoked.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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