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 NO.:  GC510560RT
          APPEAL OF
                    DORETHA MIDDLETON
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  DI530217OM

                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL

          On March 20, 1992, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued 
          on February 21, 1992, by a Rent Administrator concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 174 West 137th Street, Apt. 14, NY, 
          NY, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a major 
          capital improvement (MCI).

          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 September 29, 1989, by 
          filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation 
          of the following MCI at a total cost of $24,618.00:  new prime 
          windows.

          The tenant objected to the owner's MCI application, alleging, among 
          other things, that it was the owner's responsibility to replace the 
          old, deteriorated windows and, therefore, the cost should not be 
          passed on to the tenants who are predominantly Senior Citizens; and 
          that the windows were not properly installed because the moldings 
          around the windows were not sealed allowing air to enter the 
          apartment.

          The owner did not respond to the tenant's objections below.

          On February 21, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent 
          regulated tenants.













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GC-510560-RT

          In this petition , the tenant contends, in substance, that the 
          windows slide down once pushed up; that there are holes around the 
          windows which allow air to come into the apartment; that some of 
          the windows are difficult to open; and, that the wood around the 
          windows is falling apart.

          In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in 
          substance, that as of the date it filed the application for the 
          MCI, nearly one (1) year after the installation, no complaints were 
          received regarding the windows functioning improperly; that it is 
          willing to satisfy the tenant's alleged complaint and will send a 
          repairman to the apartment as soon as the tenant notifies it as to 
          her availability for access to the apartment; and, that the 
          complaint should be denied since it was not imposed against the 
          application.

          In reply to the owner's response, the tenant claims that the 
          landlord was previously informed about the problem with the 
          windows, which is evidenced by her response in the proceeding below 
          as required by the DHCR.

          On October 6, 1992, the owner informed the DHCR that the tenant 
          would not allow the building Superintendent to inspect the windows 
          so they could be repaired if necessary; that it will correct 
          whatever is necessary if given permission to do so; and, that it 
          had no prior knowledge of defects in the window installations.

          Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a copy of a certified letter 
          dated October 29, 1992, sent to the owner regarding the fact that 
          she had given the building Superintendent permission to inspect 
          and/or repair the windows in her apartment.  The letter was 
          received by the owner on November 3, 1992.  The petitioner claimed 
          that she received no response to her letter; and that no inspection 
          and/or repairs had been made to her apartment as of November 12, 
          1992.

          On February 8, 1993, the owner submitted a copy of a letter dated 
          November 23, 1992, sent to the tenant in response to her letter 
          dated October 29, 1992, questioning whether or not the alleged 
          problems had been repaired.  Additionally, an affidavit dated 
          January 21, 1993, from the Superintendent was submitted by the 
          owner as an affirmation of the fact that petitioner's living room 
          window had been repaired as it was the only window the petitioner 
          claimed to be having a problem with at that time; that upon the 
          request of the owner on January 19, 1993, he went to the apartment 
          again to repair the dysfunctional window but was refused 
          admittance; and, that when he is permitted access to the premises, 
          he will make any necessary repairs.










          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GC-510560-RT

          Furthermore, the owner states that the tenant is a chronic 
          complainer continually claiming that conditions exist in her 
          apartment which are in need of repair; that the Superintendent 
          makes many trip to the apartment before access is permitted in an 
          effort to correct any defective items; that several appointments 
          have not been kept by the tenant; that access must be permitted 
          between the hours of 9am and 5pm, Monday through Friday; that if 
          the DHCR would make arrangements for access to the premises, the 
          owner will make the necessary repairs; and that the tenant did not 
          reply to its request for the status of the complaint even though a 
          stamped self-addressed envelope was included in the aforementioned 
          correspondence.

          In a response dated March 13, 1993 the tenant alleged, among other 
          things, that contrary to the owner's latest response, the building 
          Superintendent has not repaired any dysfunctional windows in her 
          apartment; that the Superintendent never requested access to her 
          apartment to make any window repairs; that she never received a 
          letter from Property Salvage Corp. regarding the status of her 
          complaint; and that the Superintendent has failed to keep several 
          appointments made with the petitioner in order to effectuate the 
          necessary repairs.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of the record, 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          remanded for further consideration as to the status of the MCI 
          installation herein.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that although 
          several tenants, including the petitioner, submitted responses 
          below pertaining to the poor workmanship of the MCI herein, the 
          Rent Administrator failed to inspect the subject premises in order 
          to determine whether or not the tenants' allegations had merit.  At 
          this point in time, it is still questionable as to whether or not 
          any problems with the petitioner's windows have been corrected.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand this 
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator for such further processing as 
          may be necessary to determine whether or not the MCI installation 
          herein was properly installed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is





















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GC-510560-RT 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator 
          for further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.  
          The automatic stay of so much of the Rent Administrator's order 
          pertaining to the retroactive rent increase is hereby continued 
          until a new order is issued upon the remand.  However, the 
          Administrator's determination as to the prospective rent increase 
          is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the Administrator 
          issues a new order upon the remand.

          The Commissioner notes that tenants who have a valid Senior Citizen 
          Rent Increase Exemption are not required to pay, rent as increased 
          which is in excess of one third of the tenants' income.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         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