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 
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. FE 110325-RO
                                         :  
                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       JAN KORMANIK,                        DOCKET NO. DE 130079-OM
                           PETITIONER    :  
     ------------------------------------X                             

              ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE

     The  above  named  petitioner  owner  timely  refiled   a   Petition   for
     Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent  Administrator  issued
     February 22, 1991.  The order concerned housing  accommodations  known  as
     31-11 33rd Street, Astoria, New  York,  Various  Apartments,  wherein  the
     Administrator  denied  the  owner's  application  for  a   major   capital
     improvement (MCI) rent increase.

     The Commissioner has reviewed the record  and  carefully  considered  that
     portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.

     The owner of the subject six family dwelling commenced this proceeding  by
     initially filing a rent increase application  with  the  Administrator  in
     March 1989 predicated on the installation of a roof, new apartment windows 
     and leaders and gutters at a total claimed cost of  $9,780.00.  The  owner
     indicated that the work was performed  by  his  own  contracting  company,
     Kormanik Home Contractor's.  The tenants of three apartments (3R,2R, & 1F) 
     responded to the application and raised  identical  objections:  that  the
     owner never changed the leaders and gutters; that the roof leaks; and that 
     the windows  are  smaller  than  the  wall  openings  by  5  to  7  inches
     permitting drafts and rain to come through.

     A physical inspection was conducted on the subject  premises  on  December
     19, 1990 the report of which disclosed water  stains  on  the  ceiling  of
     Apartment 3R; that the roof itself showed no evidence of any defects or of 
     water filtering from the roof; that the bedroom windows  in  apartment  2R
     and 3R were 4 inches shorter than the window frame  and  had  been  filled
     with a two inch pieces of wood; and that all windows  in  said  apartments
     were drafty due to lack of caulking.  On February 28, 1991  the  inspector
     obtained access  to  apartment  1F  and  found  all  windows  in  need  of
     caulking. 

     On February 22, 1991 the Administrator issued the  order  appealed  herein
     which denied the application based upon a finding that  the  installations
     were not performed in a workmanlike manner.







          DOCKET NUMBER: FE 110325-RO
     In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that the roof leak  had
     been  fixed;  and  that  drafty  windows  were  repaired.   Said  petition
     contains various tenant signatures.

     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.

     It is the position of the Division that the installation of a new roof and 
     the  building-wide  installation  of  all  apartment  and/or  public  area
     windows, to replace windows which are 25 or more years  old,  fall  within
     the definitial requirements of a major capital  improvement  for  which  a
     rent increase may be warranted.  For such installations to qualify  for  a
     rent increase, however, the work must be performed  building-wide  and  in
     such a workmanlike manner so that  all  tenants  may  enjoy  the  intended
     benefit thereof.

     While the record, including the reports of physical inspections,  confirms
     that the windows in 50 percent of the apartments were not installed  in  a
     workmanlike fashion, the same conclusion can not be reached  with  respect
     to the roof in view  of  the  report  of  inspection  which  disclosed  no
     evidence  of  roofing  defects  or  water  filtration   from   the   roof.
     Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  deems  it  appropriate  to  remand   this
     proceeding to the Rent Administrator for such further processing as may be 
     deemed warranted,  which  may  include  a  physical  inspection,  and  for
     consideration such further allegations or contentions as may be raised  by
     the parties upon the remand.  Consideration should also be  given  to  the
     present condition of the window installation in light of the remission  of
     this proceeding.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and 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.

     ISSUED:




                                                                   
                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                     Deputy Commissioner




                                                   

                        
    

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