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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      DOCKET Nos.:  FK410442RT,
          APPEALS OF                               FK410443RT,   FK410462RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             FK410466RT,   GB410138RT,
                    300 EAST 51ST STREET           GC410408RT
                    NEW YORK, NEW YORK       
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET Nos.:  EK430048RP, 
                                                   FK430036RK

                                   PETITIONERS
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above named petitioner-tenants timely filed or re-filed 
          petitions for administrative review (PARs) against the remand and 
          reconsideration orders issued subsequent to the initial order 
          issued on November 1, 1988 under, Docket No. BE430153OM, by a Rent 
          Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 300 East 51st Street, New York, NY, various apartments, 
          wherein the Administrator initially denied the application upon a 
          finding that the owner failed to submit required information in a 
          timely manner.  

          Pursuant to a Court order derived via an Article 78 proceeding, the 
          DHCR was ordered to make a determination on the case within a 
          certain time period (SJR 5133).  The Commissioner remanded the 
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator because the owner established 
          on appeal under Docket No. CL430014RO that he had submitted a 
          timely response to the Administrator's request for further 
          information which was not considered below.  During the interim, a 
          second Article 78 proceeding was initiated by the owner to compel 
          the DHCR to make a final determination.  The Court ordered that the 
          owner be granted the increase for the MCI installations which were 
          not in dispute promptly while allowing ninety (90) additional days 
          to determine whether or not the items in dispute were eligible to 
          be included in the increase (SJR 5583).



















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FK-410442-RT

          On October 22, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued an order under 
          Docket No. EK430048RP granting the owner an increase for 410 
          apartment windows and 16 sliding glass doors pursuant to the Court 
          Order.  DHCR sought to reargue its position with respect to that 
          portion of the Court's order which granted the MCI for sliding 
          glass doors.  The Court denied DHCR's motion to reargue.  However, 
          DHCR had already issued a reconsideration order under Docket No. 
          FK430036RK which revoked the collection of any rent increases 
          associated with the sliding glass doors.  The Appellate Division 
          modified the prior decision to the extent of allowing the owner 
          thirty (30) days to file a PAR concerning the sliding glass doors 
          and directing DHCR to make a final determination within thirty (30) 
          days after submission of said PAR.  Finally, DHCR issued an order 
          granting the owner's petition for the approval of that portion of 
          the MCI related to sliding glass doors thereby reinstating the 
          order issued under Docket No. EK430048RP and revoking the order 
          issued under FK430036RK.

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same orders and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          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 these administrative appeals.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on May 7, 1987, by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation 
          of new prime windows and sliding glass doors at a total cost of 
          $200,000.00.

          Several tenants objected to the owner's application alleging, in 
          substance, that the newly installed windows were dysfunctional; 
          that the installation should not qualify as an MCI because all the 
          windows in the building were not replaced; that extensive repairs 
          were done to the windows in one of the apartments which should have 
          exempted the tenant from the window replacement and any subsequent 
          rent increase arising therefrom (12B); that the owner is failing to 
          maintain services; that the building's elevator is dysfunctional; 
          and that since the tenants were not afforded the opportunity to 
          respond in court to the Article 78 proceeding, due process has been 
          denied which should nullify the court proceedings.

          A physical inspection of the subject premises occurred on July 1 
          and 2, 1991, wherein the inspector noted that all the windows 
          complained about were functioning satisfactorily.

          The owner responded by submitting statements regarding the 
          completion of necessary repairs and/or the restoration of services.


                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FK-410442-RT

          The orders here under review granted the owner's application, in 
          part, and authorized rent increases for rent stabilized tenants. 

          In these petitions, the tenants essentially make the same 
          allegations as raised below.  The tenants additionally question the 
          owner's ability to change the bank account for the tenants' 
          security deposits to another account which yields a lower 
          percentage of interest; and whether the owner has the legal right 
          to charge tenants for servicing "lock outs."

          The owner addressed each petitioner by affirming that he has 
          proceeded through this action according to the legal specifications 
          of the DHCR and that any further challenge may be decided upon 
          judicial review. 

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should be 
          denied.
           
          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  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 replacement of windows in 
          excess of 25 years is considered to be an MCI.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that all 
          complaints regarding the installation herein were addressed 
          appropriately in the proceeding below; and that although all of the 
          windows in the building may not have been replaced, there are 
          limited circumstances where the replacement of all windows would be 
          unnecessary and unwarranted.  The  Commissioner has adopted the 
          position where an owner has earlier installed new windows, the 
          condition of which are such that their replacement is not required 
          or due to the special characteristics of certain other windows 
          which are clearly of a distinct and different nature such as public 
          area or lot line windows, that the subsequent replacement of all 
          other apartment windows totalling at a minimum at least 80% of the 
          total number of apartment windows in the building as part of a 
          unified plan and consecutively timed project completed within a 
          reasonable time frame would substantially comply with the 
          requirement of a major capital improvement.  Work of a piece-meal 
          nature or ordinary repairs does not constitute a major capital 
          improvement.  Thus, the owner may determine that certain windows do 
          not need replacement in accordance with the above noted exceptions 
          as long as it is in compliance with the 80% rule.



                                          3












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FK-410442-RT

          Failing to maintain services is best evidenced by the existence of 
          building-wide rent reduction orders and/or individual apartment 
          services complaints prior to the issuance of the order herein or 
          pending at the time of the application.  In the instant case, the 
          record indicates that although a building-wide rent reduction order 
          (TC083837B) was issued with particular emphasis on one (1) 
          apartment (12B), the owner was subsequently granted a rent 
          restoration based upon a finding that the conditions or violations 
          upon which the rent reduction order was based had been corrected 
          and warranted a restoration of the rent effective September 1, 
          1987, under Docket No. BF410125OR.  Since the building-wide issue 
          was resolved prior to the issuance of the final order herein, it 
          shall not be deemed as an impediment to the approval of the owner's 
          application.  It is further noted that the main condition resulting 
          in the rent building-wide reduction was not related to the MCIs 
          herein nor did it impose any immediately hazardous conditions upon 
          the tenants.

          In conclusion, the Commissioner notes that the manner in which the 
          owner conducts his affairs with respect to escrow accounts or 
          superintendent service fees are not issues relevant to the instant 
          proceeding; and that, if the facts so warrant, a building-wide rent 
          reduction order may result from the filing of a service complaint 
          involving elevator dysfunction.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied; 
          and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner












                                          4
    

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