OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.  
                                         :  GC 210378-RT;GC 210379-RT
        A & R REALTY &                      GC 210380-RT;GC 210381-RT
        VARIOUS TENANTS                     GC 210382-RT;GC 210383-RT
                           PETITIONERS   :  GC 210384-RT;GC 210385-RT
     ------------------------------------X  GC 210386-RT;GC 210387-RT
                                            GC 210389-RT;GC 210423-RT
                                            GC 210424-RT;GC 210425-RT
                                            GC 210426-RT;GC 210427-RT
                                            GC 210428-RT;GC 210429-RT
                                            GC 210430-RT;GC 210431-RT
                                            GC 210432-RT;GC 210433-RT
                                            GC 210434-RT;GC 210435-RT
                                            GC 210436-RT;GC 210491-RT
                                            GC 210366-RT;GC 210367-RT
                                            GC 210377-RT;GC 210092-RT
                                            FI 230052-RO;GA 210131-RT
                                            GC 210365-RT;GB 210379-RT

                                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                            DOCKET NOS. FI 230009-RK
                                                        CJ 230050-OM


     The above-named petitioners timely filed  Administrative  Appeals  against
     orders issued on August 19,  1991  and  December  31,  1991  by  the  Rent
     Administrator, (Gertz Plaza) concerning housing  accommodations  known  as
     751 Troy Avenue, Brooklyn,  New  York,  Various  Apartments,  wherein  the
     Administrator granted, in part, the owner's application for Major  Capital
     Improvement rent increases.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by these administrative appeals.

     The owner commenced this  proceeding  below  by  filing  a  major  capital
     improvement rent increase application seeking to  increase  the  rents  of
     controlled and  stabilized  apartments  based  upon  the  installation  of
     replacement windows, intercom system and the painting of hallways, stairs, 
     lobby and vestibule and at a claimed cost of $110,690.00.

     Pursuant to the order  (CJ  200050-OM)  issued  on  August  19,  1991  the
     Administrator authorized MCI rent increases for the  intercom  system  and
     for the controlled apartments only,  for  the  window  installation.   The
     Administrator denied such portion of the application as pertained  to  the
     painting of lobby, vestibule, hallways, and stairs.  The Administrator 


          DOCKET NUMBER: GC 210432-RT et al
     also disallowed an increase for the window  replacement  with  respect  to
     stabilized apartments on grounds that the application had not  been  filed
     within two years of  the  completion  date  (October  14,  1986)  of  said
     installation as required by Section 2422.4 (a)(8) of the Code.

     Thereafter the owner filed a request for reconsideration of  such  portion
     of the order which denied an increase for  the   window  installation  and
     submitted  to  the  Administrator  a  Certified  mail  receipt   for   the
     application which was postmarked by the Postal Authorities on October  13,
     1988.  On September 17, the Administrator reopened the proceeding.

     Tenants affected by the owner's rent increase  application   and  reopened
     proceeding were notified and were afforded an opportunity to respond.   In
     answer to the application, various tenants objected to the increase.

     On December 31, 1991 the Administrator issued an order  under  Docket  No.
     FI 230009-RK modifying the previous  order  issued  under  Docket  No.  CJ
     230050-OM, so as to further increase the rents of stabilized apartments to 
     reflect the cost ofthe window replacement. 

     In these petitions against the amended order (FI  230009-RK)  the  tenants
     assert, in relevant part, that (a) the owner did not file its  application
     within the two year  limit  after  the  installation  of  the  replacement
     windows was completed; b) the work done constituted ordinary  repairs  and
     not improvements, as defined by the Code; c)  the  painting  of  hallways,
     stairways, lobby and vestibule was comestic in  nature;  d)  the  intercom
     system does not function properly; e) some of the replacement windows were 
     not properly installed; f) the replacement windows benefit the  owner  due
     to the savings on heating fuel; and g) the installations  of  new  windows
     and intercom system were not necessary since their  useful  life  had  not

     In its petition against the Administrator's  August  19,  1991  order  (CJ
     230050-OM) the owner states in substance,  that  the  window  installation
     was completed on October 14, 1986; that its application was  submitted  on
     October 13, 1988, meeting the two year statute of limitation  requirement;
     and  thus  a  rent  increase  adjustment  should  be  granted   for   said
     installation as to the stabilized apartments.

     After careful consideration of the entire record the  Commissioner  is  of
     the opinion that the tenants' petitions should be  denied;  and  that  the
     owner's administrative appeal should be terminated.

     At  the  outset  the  Commissioner  notes  that  since  the  Administrator
     subsequently resolved the issue raised by the owner's petition there is no 
     further issue to be determined with respect thereto.

     Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by  Section
     2202.4  of  the  Rent  and  Evictions  Regulations  for  rent   controlled
     apartments and Section 2522.4 of the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  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

          DOCKET NUMBER: GC 210432-RT et al
     for the operation, preservation, and maintenance  of  the  structure;  and
     replace an item whose useful life has expired.  Piecemeal work or ordinary 
     repairs and maintenance does not constitute work for which a rent increase 
     adjustment in warranted under current and past procedure. 

     It is the established position of  the  Division  that  the  building-wide
     installation of apartment and/ or public area windows to  replace  windows
     which are 25 or more years old (as is the case herein) constitutes a  MCI,
     as does a new intercom system, for which a rent increase may be warranted, 
     if the owner otherwise so qualifies.

     A review of the record below discloses that the  owner  substantiated  its
     MCI application to the extent ultimately recognized by submitting  to  the
     Administrator documentation in support thereof  including  copies  of  the
     accepted  contractors'   proposals,   contractors'   certifications,   and
     cancelled checks for the work in question.  The record  further  discloses
     that the owner timely filed its MCI application.

     The tenants' contention  with  respect  to  the  work  done  (painting  of
     hallways, stairways, lobby and vestibule) is irrelevant since  the  entire
     claimed cost for said work was properly disallowed by the Administrator.

     As to the  tenants'  allegations  pertaining  to  the  conditions  of  the
     windows and the intercom system, the Commissioner notes that these  claims
     are  being  raised  for  the  first  time  on  appeal  and  are  therefore
     inappropriate for consideration at this level.   However,  this  order  is
     issued without prejudice to the tenants filing  an  appropriate  complaint
     with the DHCR based on the  owner's failure to maintain services,  if  the
     facts wo warrant.

     The other contentions raised by the tenants are irrelevant to the issue of 
     whether the owner is entitled to MCI rent increases for the  installations

     On the basis of the entire evidence  of  record,  it  is  found  that  the
     Administrator's amended order (FI 230009-RK)  is  correct  and  should  be

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

     ORDERED, that the petition under Docket No. FI 230052-RO be, and the  same
     hereby is terminated as moot; and it is further

     ORDERED, that the tenants' petitions for administrative review be, and the 
     same hereby are denied; and that the Administrator's  order  under  Docket
     No. FI 230009-RK) be, and the same hereby is affirmed.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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