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 
      IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
      APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:GE 110143-RT
      LILLY SCHIAVON, SANDRA ABADIE,      :              GE 110149-RT
      MAUREEN WATERS, & ANDRIANA BREGMAN                 GE 110197-RT
                                                         GE 110230-RT
                            PETITIONERS   : 
      ------------------------------------X  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: EC 110053-OM

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      The above named petitioners-tenants timely filed petitions for 
      Administrative Review against an order issued on April 28, 1992 by the Rent 
      Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing 
      accommodations known as 80-08 35th Avenue, Queens, New York, Various 
      Apartments.  The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
      Administrative Appeals for determination under this order and opinion as 
      they involve common issues of law and fact.

      The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application in 
      March of 1990.  In response to the owner's application, the tenants by its 
      Tenants Association's Representative filed an answer, stating, among other 
      things, that several tenants still have not received screens for their 
      windows; that the windows were installed improperly; and that although all 
      windows are in place, the finishing work was never completed.  On June 13, 
      1991 the owner was notified of the tenants' complaints.  On July 16, 1991 
      the owner advised the Division that the problems with the windows have been 
      corrected.  A subsequent inquiry sent to the tenants' representative on 
      September 10, 1991 to confirm whether the windows are all right, elicited 
      a response stating that there is a cracked window lock in apartment 6A and 
      that some apartments do not have window screens.  An inspection conducted 
      on December 11, 1991 revealed that the kitchen window lock in apartment 6A 
      is cracked.

      The Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, granted a major capital 
      improvement (MCI) rent increase based on the installation of windows at a 
      total approved cost of $102,817.00 and contained the notation that the 
      owner is barred from collecting the increase from the tenant in apartment 
      6A until repairs have been completed.

      In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request reversal 
      or modification of the Administrator's order and contend; in substance, 
      that water is seeping through the windows in the living room; and that 
      condensation between the windows is so bad that it is impossible to see 
      outside - Apt 3R; that the windows do not have screens; that the window 
      frames were not painted when the windows were installed; that the bathroom 
      window does not stay up; that it is believed the new increase has already 
      been included in the rent due to the fact that the improvement was done 









          DOCKET NUMBER: GE 110143-RT, et al.
      prior to the occupancy of the apartment; and that the apartment is a studio 
      which contains one big room and not two rooms as listed by the owner - Apt. 
      5G; that the bathroom windows do not have screens - Apt. 3N; and that the 
      kitchen window is not functioning as the lock on the right side is cracked 
      - Apt. 4K.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that these Administrative Appeals should be 
      denied.

      Operational Bulletin 84-4 provides, in pertinent part, that the building- 
      wide installation of windows whose useful life has expired constitutes a 
      major capital improvement for which a rent increase would be warranted.  
      The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application by 
      submitting to the Administrator a copy of the proposal, invoice, 
      contractor's certification and cancelled checks for the work in question.

      With respect to the tenants' contentions regarding defects with the 
      windows, there is no indication that these petitioners could not have 
      raised the issue before the Administrator in the proceeding below.  
      Accordingly, this issue is not within the scope of the Commissioner's 
      review of this proceeding and may not be considered at this state of the 
      proceeding.

      This determination is without prejudice to the rights of the tenants filing 
      an application with the Division for a rent reduction based upon a decrease 
      in service, if the facts so warrant.

      As to the contentions of the tenant in apartment 5G regarding the belief 
      that the new increase has already been included in the rent due to the fact 
      that the improvement was done prior to the occupancy of the apartment and 
      the alleged room count discrepancy, the Commissioner notes that the owner 
      is not allowed to collect any increase for the windows until an order is 
      issued by the Division and that this tenant as were all other tenants 
      served with the owner's application for a major capital improvement rent 
      increase.  In addition, the record discloses that the tenants' 
      representative submitted an apartment chart lising all apartments in the 
      "G" line as having two rooms.

      As to the tenants' contentions regarding window screens, the Commissioner 
      notes that the owner did not refute the tenants' claims raised before and 
      again on appeal that they had screens prior to the installation of the new 
      windows and that some windows do not have screens now.  As such, the owner 
      is directed to install any or all screens that are missing in apartments 3N 
      and 5G within 30 days of the issuance of this order.  Failure of the owner 
      to perform such work may result in the revocation of the increase for these 
      apartments upon notification by these tenants to the Administrator that the 
      required screens have not been installed.

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








          DOCKET NUMBER: GE 110143-RT, et al.
      ORDERED, that these petitions 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
                                       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