STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
------------------------------------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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner