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

      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FL230096RO
                                             DOCKET NO.: FD230156OM
                            PETITIONER    : 


      On December 16, 1991, the above named petitioner-owner timely refiled a 
      petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
      November 8, 1991 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the 
      housing accommodations known as 1326 55th Street, Brooklyn, New York, 
      various apartments.

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

      The owner commenced this proceeding on April 25, 1991 by filing an 
      application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase based on 
      the installation of windows at a claimed cost of $10,445.00.

      The Rent Administrator denied the owner's application upon a finding that 
      23% of the total number of windows were installed prior to the subject 
      installation, and that therefore, the installation did not qualify as an 

      In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that an MCI rent 
      increase should be granted for 46 windows installed in November of 1990.

      After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of 
      the opinion that this petition should be denied.

      It is the established position of the Division that the building-wide 
      installation of new apartment and/or public area windows to replace windows 
      that are 25 or more years old constitutes an MCI for which a rent increase 
      may be warranted, provided the owner otherwise so qualifies.  Work of a 
      piecemeal nature or ordinary repairs does not constitute an MCI.

      However, in recognition of the fact that there are limited circumstances 
      where the replacement of all windows would be an unnecessary and 
      unwarranted expense, the Commissioner has adopted the position that 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, that the subsequent replacement of all other 
      apartment windows totalling at a minimum at least 80% of of the total 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FL230096RO

      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 requirements of an MCI.  

      The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that it took the owner 
      over five years to install just sixty windows in the subject premises (an 
      eight unit building): 8 (13%) windows installed in 1985; 6 (10%) windows 
      installed in 1988; and 46 (77%) windows installed in 1991.  The owner's 
      failure to show in some concrete manner that her intention at the outset 
      was to perform a unified and consecutively timed window installation 
      building-wide compels a denial of this appeal.  Compliance with every other 
      aspect of the Code and Regulations is not sufficient where, as in the 
      instant case, the installation was performed in a piece-meal fashion, and 
      there is no indication that a building-wide installation was intended or 
      contemplated at any one time or pursuant to any one contract.

      Accordingly, the Administrator was correct in disallowing the rent increase 
      for the installation of 46 windows as it only totals a 77% installation, 
      falling 3% short of the required 80% minimum MCI criteria for window 

      The Commissioner further notes below several blatant discrepancies in the 
      supporting documentation of the owner's application.  Three different 
      invoices were submitted for the installation of 46 windows done during the 
      period from November 1990 through April 1991:

           a)  Invoice #001346 dated November 12, 1990 for 46 white vinyl
               windows at a cost of $9,200.00;

           b)  Invoice #000890 dated November 12, 1990 for 45 white vinyl
           windows at a cost of $9,000.00; and 

           c)  Invoice #000761 dated April 12, 1991 for 54 bronze windows at
               a cost of $10,800.00.

      The unexplained inconsistencies (number, cost and type) in the three 
      invoices (for apparently the same installation occurring in December 1990- 
      April, 1991) are further grounds for the denial of the owner's MCI 

      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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same  hereby is, affirmed.


                                           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