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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
Various Tenants of FH510083RT, FH510121RT,
11 Wadsworth Avenue FH510123RT, FH520124RT,
New York, New York FH510125RT, FH510126RT,
D.R.O. DOCKET NO:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 31, 1991 and August 1, 1991 t e above-named petitioner-
tenants filed Administrative Appeals against an order issued on
July 9, 1991 by the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica New York, concerning the housing accommodations
known as 11 Wadsworth Avenue, New York, New York, Various
The various tenants' appeals against the Administrator's order
are consolidated in this proceeding for a uniform determination
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly granted the owner's application for a Major Capital
Improvement (MCI) increase in rent.
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 administrative appeals.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted
the owner's MCI application based upon the owner's installation
of a roof and replacement windows for the subject building with
approved net costs for MCI's totalling $29,765.00.
However, because an inspection revealed that the windows
installed in apartments 2-D, 3-A and 4-B were defective, the
owner was barred form collecting the window part of the MCI
increase from these three (3) tenants until such time as the
Docket No. FH510082RT - 2 -
replacement windows were repaired. The three tenants, however,
were required to pay the roof part of the MCI increase.
The maximum/legal regulated rents of all apartments were
increased by the District Rent Administrator as follows:
(A) Rent-controlled housing units by $3.35 per room, per
(B) Rent-Stabilized housing units by $4.55 per room, per
The above rental increases were subject to the modifications for
apartments 2-D, 3-A and 4-B noted above and further to a tax
abatement offset computation based upon a J-51 yearly tax
benefit, affecting rent-stabilized tenants.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenants assert that the quality of the
replacement windows is poor; that some were broken; that some do
not properly go up or lock; and that, in general, there are
remaining window problems. None of the petitioner-tenants raised
any issue on appeal about the roof repair.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeals 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 the Rent
Stabilization 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,
preservation, 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 record in the instant case indicates that the owner properly
complied with the application procedures for a major capital
improvement and the District Rent Administrator properly computed
the appropriate rent increases.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing his MCI
application in 1989. In response to the application, various
tenants objected to the increase. The objections included
problems with the windows. However, the tenants of apartments 2
C, 3-B and 3-D did not file answers to the owner's application.
Docket No. FH510082RT - 3 -
On January 29, 1991 copies of the tenants' complaints were sent
to the owner, who in turn, replied on February 14, 1991, that all
problems with the windows had been corrected.
On March 27, 1991, a copy of the owner's response was sent to the
various tenants for confirmation.
The Commissioner notes that the District Rent Administrator
stated that only three (3) tenants (apartments 2D, 3A, and 4B)
responded and all three stated that the windows in their
apartments were still defective. Consequently, an inspection was
held on May 21, 1991, which supported these three tenants' claims
and the District Rent Administrator's order of July 9, 1991
eliminated the owner's collection of a window rent increase until
such time as these windows were repaired.
The Commissioner also notes that three of the petitioners
(apartments 2-C, 3-B and 3-D) raised no objections to the quality
or adequacy of the installations while this proceeding was before
the Rent Administrator although they were afforded the
opportunity to do so.
Accordingly, pursuant to prior administrative decisions under
the Rent and Eviction Regulations and pursuant to Section 2529.6
of the Rent Stabilization Code, these tenants' allegations may
not be considered now when offered for the first time on
Upon the evidence in the file, the Commissioner finds that the
MCI rental increases ordered below should not be revoked.
This order and opinion, however, is issued without prejudice to
the right of the tenants to file complaints of service decrease,
seeking rent reductions, in which they may claim that the windows
installed in their individual apartments are defective and not
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City and the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA