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   SJR No. 7010
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.:  GB230313RO
                                           
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    STEPHEN LEVY                   DOCKET NO.:  DG230008OM

                                   PETITIONER      
          -------------------------------------X
                                                
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On February 27, 1992 the above named petitioner-owner timely filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued 
          on February 5, 1992, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 114 Fenimore Street, 
          Brooklyn, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator partially granted, the application (for rent 
          controlled apartments only) based on the installation of various 
          major capital improvements (MCIs). 

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on July 7, 1989 by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the total 
          claimed cost of $90,004.00 for the following installations:  
          windows, pointing and a new boiler/burner.

          On November 22, 1991, the Division requested that the owner obtain 
          an affidavit from the window contractor explaining why the window 
          installation did not commence (December 8, 1986) until one year 
          after the contract date (November 5, 1985), and also including the 
          exact commencement and completion dates of the window installation.

          The owner responded to the Division's request on December 31, 1991, 
          stating, in substance, that it had requested the information from 
          the contractor by certified letters of November 30, 1991 and 
          December 20, 1991, but received no response; and that it tried to 
          get the contractor's telephone number from information, but no 
          number was listed.



ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GB230313RO

On February 5, 1992, the Rent Administrator granted, in part, the 
owner's MCI application and authorized a rent increase for the rent 
controlled apartments based on the entire claimed installation cost 
for the windows, pointing and a new boiler/burner.  A rent increase 









          for the rent stabilized apartments was disallowed for those 
          installations on the grounds that the owner had failed to file its 
          application within two years of the installation completion dates.

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that there 
          should be no bar to his collecting an MCI rent increase for the 
          rent stabilized apartments based on the boiler/burner and window 
          installations since the application initially filed on June 16, 
          1989 and re-filed on July 7, 1989 was within the two year 
          completion dates for the windows (December 4, 1987) and the 
          boiler/burner (December 15, 1987).

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

          Section 2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code precludes a 
          rent increase for an MCI when the application is filed more than 
          two years after the completion of the installation, not the date of 
          issuance of any required governmental certificate.  (Accord:  
          EG430076RO; EL210007RT et. al and EL630365RO).  In the last cited 
          proceeding, a window installation was considered complete when the 
          old windows were actually replaced and not when all adjustments or 
          defects were attended to.  While the applicable section of the Code 
          envisions governmental sign-offs be submitted with the application 
          to be filed within two years of the physical completion of the 
          work, the Code provides for a reasonable extension of time where 
          the applicant can demonstrate a delay, beyond the applicant's 
          control, in obtaining such approvals for which the applicant has 
          promptly applied within such two year period.  The Code does not 
          create a new two year filing period dating from the time 
          governmental approval is actually obtained.

          Clearly, the completion date of July 7, 1986 for the pointing 
          (which is not in dispute) does not meet the two year filing 
          requirement, and was properly disallowed by the Administrator.  

          The owner's MCI application contains an obvious discrepancy in the 
          completion date for the window installation:  the RA-79 lists the 
          completion date as (June 5, 1986) however, the RA-79 Supplement I 
          lists the completion date as December 4, 1987.  In addition, an 
          alteration with white correction fluid is evident on the RA-79 
          Supplement I, Side One, under column (A), in the three spaces 
          provided for "Date Contract Executed" (October 6, 1985), "Date Work 
          Commenced" (December 8, 1986), and "Date Work Completed" (December 
          4, 1987).  The RA-79 further reflects a chronological discrepancy:  
          the completion date for the window installation (June 5, 1986) is 
          listed as occurring six months prior to the commencement date 
          (December 7, 1986).  Moreover, various tenants dispute the dates 
          offered by the owner on the application and offer an earlier 
          completion date (January 1986) for the window installation.  



                                          2






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GB230313RO

               It is further noted that the window installation contract 
               is dated November 6, 1985 and provides in pertinent part 
               as follows:

               Terms:
          (a)  Deposit on signing of this Agreement    - $  8,200.00 (20%)
          (b)  Payment on delivery of the windows by 
               Thermal prior to the installation
          (c)  First of 24 monthly installment         - $ 32,804.00 (80%)
               payments, at 12% interest to be
               evidenced by a series of notes, a form
               of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B",
               is to be made upon substantial completion
               (emphasis added) with remaining 23 monthly 
               installment payments commencing one month after
               first installment payment is made until balance has
               been paid, with owner having a right of prepayment.

          The cancelled checks submitted by the owner as proof of payment for 
          the window installation are as follows:

                              11/06/85                 $   250.00
                              01/16/86                 $ 8,000.00
                              06/02/86                 $ 3,080.00
                              08/08/86                 $ 1,541.00
                              08/15/86                 $ 1,541.00
                              09/15/86                 $ 1,541.00
                              10/22/86                 $ 3,080.00
                              12/08/86                 $ 1,540.00
                              01/26/87                 $ 3,080.00
                              04/01/87                 $ 3,080.00
                              06/08/87                 $ 3,080.00
                              07/08/87                 $ 1,540.00
                              09/01/87                 $ 3,080.00
                              12/04/87                 $ 3,080.00
                              03/20/88                 $ 7,484.00













          It is clear from the above-noted payment schedule that the first 
          monthly payment after the deposit had been paid occurred on June 2, 
          1986, which, according to the plain terms of the contract, was to 
          be made upon substantial completion of the installation.

          Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner finds 
          that the window installation was completed in 1986, and therefore, 
          further finds that the Administrator correctly denied the owner a 
          rent increase for the window installation due to the owner's 
          failure to file the application within two years of the completion 
          date of the installation.



                                          3
          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GB230313RO

          With regard to the boiler/burner installation, the commencement 
          date (March 16, 1986) and the completion date (December 15, 1987) 
          on the RA-79 and RA-79 Supplement I forms, although consistent on 
          its face, is inconsistent with the owner's supporting 
          documentation, i.e., the payment schedule provided by the 
          boiler/burner contract which required full payment by March 29, 
          1987 (at least nine months earlier than the completion date listed 
          on either form) and the issuance date January 7, 1987 of the 
          Certificate of Operation issued by the City of New York Department 
          of Air Resources, a fairly accurate representation of the date the 
          boiler/burner was completed and in actual operation.  

          Furthermore, the Commissioner rejects as not credible the owner's 
          contention that it took one year and nine months to complete the 
          installation, especially considering the size of the subject 
          building (42 units), and the fact that the premises would be 
          without adequate heat and hot water for that lengthy time frame.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner also finds that the Administrator 
          correctly denied the owner an MCI rent increase due to the owner's 
          failure to file its application within two years of the completion 
          of the boiler/burner installation.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is 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