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.:
PETITIONER BH 430285-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 9, 1991, the above-named tenant refiled a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on December 26, 1990, by
a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 3, 198 First Avenue, New York, 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 August 4, 1987 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on a major capital
improvement, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $7,560.00.
On December 26, 1990, 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 controlled and rent
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that he
did not need any new windows.
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. Under rent control, an increase is
warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a major capital
improvement required for the operation, preservation, or main-
tenance of the structure.
The Commissioner notes that the old windows which were replaced
by the new installation were over thirty-five years old and had
exceeded their useful life. Accordingly, their replacement was
warranted and qualified for a MCI rent increase.
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 and Eviction Regulations
for New York City, 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