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 NOS.:
MAX MANTELL, et al., FE 230189-RT
PETITIONERS CF 230145-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
Various tenants, in timely manner, filed and refiled petitions
for administrative review of an order issued on April 12, 1991,
by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation,
known as 2157 Ocean Avenue, 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 June 20, 1988 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve
ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $67,782.00.
On December 15, 1988, the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the application
and afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment
Various tenants filed objections to the owner's application
alleging in substance that the installation of new windows con-
stituted maintenance rather than a major capital improvement.
On April 12, 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 controll d and rent stabilized apart-
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
reversal of the Rent Administrator's ord r and allege in sub-
stance that the window installation constituted maintenance
rather than a major capital improvement and further allege cer-
tain service deficiencies in their apartment and building.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of t e Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preserva-
tion, or maintenance of the structure. 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 Commissioner notes that although the tenants allege in their
petition that the new windows were not installed correctly, not
one of these tenants raised this objection while the proceeding
was pending before the Rent Administrator when this allegation
could have been investigated and problems with the installations
could have been corrected prior to the granting of any rent
increases. Accordingly, this allegation, which is raised for the
first time now on administrative appeal, may not be considered
This order and opinion is issued without prejudi e to the ten-
ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services
if the facts so warrant.
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 tenants have not established
that the increase should be revoked.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby