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.:  GK410050RT,
          APPEALS OF                               GK410052RT,   GK410053RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GK410054RT,   GK410055RT,
                    108 West 15th St. NY, NY       GK410056RT,   GK410057RT,
                                                   GK410058RT,   GK410059RT,
                                                   GK410060RT,   GK410061RT,
                                                   GK410064RT,   GK410065RT,
                                                   GK410067RT,
                    
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  FJ410026RP

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

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 4, 1992, various tenants timely filed  petitions  for
          administrative review against an order issued on October 2, 1992 by 
          a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          various apartments of 108 West 15th Street, New York, NY.   

          The  Commissioner  deems  it  appropriate  to  consolidate  these
          petitions for a uniform disposition since they pertain to the same 
          order 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 June 1, 1989, by filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of  the
          following items at a total cost of $53,415.00:  new windows and a 
          waste compactor.  The owner indicated in its application that the 
          building contained 55 apartments all of which were rent stabilized 
          with a total of 130 rooms.

          A total of 17 tenants responded to the owner's MCI application, 16 
          of which only requested an  extension  of  time  to  examine  the
          application  before  submitting  their   answers.    One   tenant
          specifically  objected  to  the  new  windows  saying  they  were
          unnecessary and were only installed as an excuse to increase  the
          rent.  All of the responses were received in October 1989.















          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GK-410050-RT

          On November 2, 1990, in response to a request  for  clarification
          from the Rent Administrator, the owner amended its application to 
          state that the total number of rooms in the building was 155  and
          not 130 and that the new windows were installed in all  of  them.
          The response was never served on the tenants. 

          In Docket No.  DF-410255-OM  issued  March  15,  1991,  the  Rent
          Administrator granted,  in  part,  the  owner's  application  and
          authorized an increase for the new windows.   Disallowed  by  the
          Administrator was the claimed  cost  of  $5,200.00  for  a  waste
          compactor upon a finding that the owner had failed  to  file  its
          application within two years from  the  completion  date  of  the
          compactor installation.

          Nineteen tenants appealed the above-mentioned order and contended, 
          in substance, that (1) the room count upon which the increase was 
          based was incorrect in that the "A","B","G" and "K" line apartments 
          had three and a half rooms whereas the D line apartments consisted 
          of four and a half rooms; (2)  none  of  the  hall  windows  were
          replaced despite the owner's claim that the window replacement was 
          building-wide;  (3)  the  cost  of  the  window  replacement  was
          excessive; (4) the window replacement was unnecessary and was not 
          done for the benefit of the tenants, but instead was done to create 
          a "selling point" for converting the building to a cooperative; and 
          (5) the old windows would not have needed replacement if the owner 
          had properly maintained them.

          In its answer, the owner stated that the hall  windows  were  not
          replaced and were not part of the total window count.  The replaced 
          windows, however, were over 25 years old and had  exceeded  their
          useful life.  Furthermore, the cost of $155.00 per window was less 
          than the $165.00 approved under  the  New  York  State  valuation
          standards.  The  owner  also  objected  to  the  tenants  raising
          arguments for the first time on appeal.  Finally, the owner noted 
          that the room count was correct under the RSA standards.

          In Administrative Review Docket Nos. FF-410543-RT el  al.  issued
          October 23, 1991, the Commissioner found as follows:

               The tenants' contention that  the  window  installation
               cannot  be  considered  building-wide  because  of  the
               omission of windows in the hallways is incorrect.   The
               Commissioner has held that such circumstances do not mean 
               that the replacement was not done  on  a  building-wide
               basis, especially if the actual improvement consisted of 
               replacing all windows in all apartments, which resulted 
               in benefits to every tenant.  Moreover, had the hallways 
               windows been replaced, this cost would only  have  been
               factored into the total cost, resulting in an even higher 
               increase (ARB Docket No. ART-07981-B et al.).  The claim 
               that the replacement was unnecessary  is  also  without
               merit, since the record is undisputed that the windows 






          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GK-410050-RT

               were over 25  years  old  and,  according  to  previous
               holdings, are meriting of an MCI increase regardless of 
               their condition  (ARB  Docket  No.  ART-00840-W).   The
               general objections that the claimed cost has  not  been
               substantiated is,  firstly,  disputed  by  the  owner's
               documentation in the record and secondly, is inadmissible 
               since it had not been raised by any of the tenants in the 
               record below, and cannot be raised for the first time on 
               appeal.  The contention that the owner's real purpose for 
               the replacement was as a "selling point" in  converting
               the building to a  co-operative  does  not  lessen  its
               benefit to the tenants, and is no reason not to grant an 
               authorized rent increase.  Finally, the contention that 
               no replacement would have been necessary if the owner had 
               properly maintained the windows, besides  contradicting
               the tenants' claim that  the  old  windows  were  still
               adequate, is also meritless because of the aforementioned 
               25 year useful life policy  and  because  none  of  the
               tenants   had   filed   service   complaints   charging
               deterioration of the old windows.

          The Commissioner remanded the proceeding to determine the  proper
          room count for the subject building.

          On November 13, 1991, the Rent Administrator mailed to the  owner
          and all tenants a  notice  of  Proceeding   to  Reconsider  Order
          Pursuant to Remand wherein all parties  were  informed  that  the
          proceeding  had been reopened for the purpose of determining  the
          total room count for the subject building.

          Eleven tenants submitted responses alleging the room  counts  for
          their respective apartments.  The tenant of apartment 5E contends 
          that the new windows are defective.  The tenant of  apartment  5B
          contends that the old windows were repaired one month before  the
          new windows were installed and were in perfect working order.

          The owner responded by submitting a letter  on  March  31,  1992,
          wherein the owner stated that pursuant  to  the  new  room  count
          definition in Policy Statement 90-3, the correct room count for the 
          subject building was 155.

          On May 11, 1992, the owner submitted a layout for the  "A",  "B",
          "D", "G" and "K" lines of the subject building which indicated the 
          square footage of each room of the apartments.

          In Docket No. ZFJ-410026-RP issued  October  2,  1992,  the  Rent
          Administrator determined that the total number of  rooms  in  the
          subject building was 145, and accordingly, modified  the  monthly
          rent increase previously granted under Docket No.  ZDF-410256-OM.
           














          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GK-410050-RT

          In these petitions, the tenants contend, in substance,  that  (1)
          they were never notified about the remand order, and thus lost any 
          opportunity to submit documents; (2) the Division failed to  take
          into account that the hallway windows were not replaced; (3)  the
          Division failed to investigate whether said window replacement was 
          necessary and (4) the Division failed  to  rebut  any  statements
          contained in the previous PAR, which should have been fairly  and
          thoroughly investigated in the remanded proceeding.

          In response to the tenants' petitions,  the  owner  contends,  in
          substance, that the Division issued an Order and Opinion on October 
          23,  1991   which   reaffirmed   the   Administrator's   original
          determination granting an MCI rent increase for the windows,  but 
          remanding the proceeding to verify the room count for the subject 
          building.  On October 23, 1992, the Division  issued  a  modified
          order to reflect the correct room count  and  adjusted  the  rent
          increase.  The tenants, however, have filed Petitions  using  the
          same arguments regarding the windows which the Division had already 
          addressed and dismissed in the original petition.  As all evidence 
          has been reviewed, and all arguments previously addressed regarding 
          the windows, the tenants' petitions should be dismissed.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of 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 evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner 
          correctly complied with the application procedures for an MCI.  The 
          owner substantiated its application in the  proceeding  below  by
          submitting to the Administrator contracts, proposals, invoices and 
          cancelled checks for the work in question.  On the other hand, the 
          tenants have not submitted any evidence, either in the proceeding 
          before the Administrator or on appeal, to support  any  of  their
          allegations and have not established that the rent increase should 
          be revoked.

          The Commissioner  finds  that  the  record  belies  the  tenants'
          contention that they  were  never  notified  about  the  remanded
          proceeding and were not given the opportunity to submit evidence. 
          As a matter of fact, the record indicates that all of the tenants 
          were sent a notice of the remanded proceeding on November 13, 1991, 
          and that eleven tenants submitted responses thereto.









          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GK-410050-RT

          With regard to the remaining  contentions  of  the  tenants,  the
          Commissioner notes that all of those issues were fully  addressed
          and properly adjudicated in the Commissioner's earlier  order  of
          October 23, 1991.  In this respect, the Commissioner notes that an 
          owner need not to replace public area windows to obtain an increase 
          for the building-wide installation of apartment  windows  (Policy
          Statement 89-6); and that the contract with the window  installer
          does not provide for the installation of hallway windows.

          Based upon the entire evidence of record as amplified upon remand, 
          the Commissioner finds that the  Administrator's  order  appealed
          herein is correct and should be affirmed.

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

          ORDERED, that these administrative appeals be, and the same hereby 
          are, denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be,  and  the
          same hereby is, affirmed.

          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