STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: FB530158RO
DOCKET NO.: BL530194OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 15, 1991, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on January 18, 1991, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 600 West 204th
Street, New York, NY, wherein the Rent Administrator determined
that the owner was not entitled to a rent increase based on the
installation of major capital improvements (MCIs).
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 this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on December 18, 1987, by
initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the
installation of the following items at a total cost of $101,895.00:
d) windows; and
The Rent Administrator denied the application in its entirety based
upon a finding that the installations had been completed more than
two (2) years prior to the filing of the application herein.
The petitioner challenges the Rent Administrator's denial of the
application for windows, only, contending, in substance, that DHCR
criteria for this particular installation had been satisfied.
After considering that portion of the record relevant to the issue
raised by this petition, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
this petition should be denied.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FB-530158-RO
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the
installation of the windows was completed prior to June 6, 1985, as
evidenced by the contract change request submitted by the owner in
the proceeding below. In said contract change request the
contractor stated that as of June 6, 1985, the inspectors report
indicated that the installation workmanship was satisfactorily
performed. Clearly, the two year limitation had been exceeded by
at least six months as the application was not filed until December
It is the established policy of DHCR to base the two year
limitation upon the date that the actual work was completed as
opposed to the date that final payment was effectuated.
Accordingly, the February 20, 1986, date asserted by the owner as
the completion date for the window installation is incorrect as
said date merely indicates when the New York City Department of
Housing Preservation and Development made its final payment under
the Article 8A Loan Program (a process which may take the City
agency months to complete in any case even after the installation
has been completed).
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
Joseph A. D'Agosta