OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

                 ANNETTE STRACHAN
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.: EC630049OM


          On May 15, 1992 the above-named petitioner-tenant timely filed a 
          petition for administrative (PAR) against an order issued on April 
          29, 1992 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as Apartment 2A, 3471 Wilson Avenue, 
          Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          owner was entitled to a rent increase based on a major capital 

          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 March 6, 1990 by initially 
          filing an application for a rent increase predicated on the 
          installation of new apartment windows at a total claimed cost of 
          $93,920.00.  In support of its application, the owner submitted 
          copies of the contract and cancelled checks.

          Several tenants, including the petitioner-tenant, responded to the 
          owner's application.  The tenants contended, in substance, that 
          they were not consulted; that the old windows were adequate; and 
          that they did not request new windows.  In addition, the 
          petitioner-tenant also claimed that the cost of the installation as 
          submitted by the owner is higher than the amount stated in the 
          contract. The tenants also identified several service problems that 
          existed in individual apartments but failed to make any objections 
          pertinent to the installation.

          On April 29, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation of new apartment windows 
          qualified as a major capital improvement, determining that the 

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GE610151RT

          application complied with the relevant laws and regulations based 
          upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner and 
          allowing rent increases for both rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments based upon the approved cost of $93,920.00.

          In her petition, the tenant requests modification of the 
          Administrator's order and reiterates, in substance, that which was 
          asserted when the case was before the Rent Administrator namely, 
          that she was not consulted about the installation; that she was 
          only made aware of the new windows on the eve of the installation; 
          that the old windows were adequate; and that the stated cost of the 
          installation in the owner's application is higher than the actual 
          sum charged by the installer.

          In response to the tenant's petition the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the tenant's objections are without basis; that the 
          tenant was properly notified of the date of installation; and that 
          the cost of the window installation was justified at the time the 
          major capital improvement rent increase application was processed.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition 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 Commissioner notes that it is the established position of the 
          Division, that the building-wide installation of apartment windows 
          qualifies as a major capital improvement for which an increase may 
          be warranted, providing the owner otherwise so qualifies.  The 
          record indicates that the owner correctly complied with the 
          applicable procedures for a major capital improvement rent 
          increase.  The Commissioner further notes that on appeal, the 
          tenant does not challenge the propriety of the Administrator's 
          order but merely asserts that the old windows were adequate; that 
          she was never consulted; and that the cost of the installation, as 
          stated in the owner's application, is greater that the actual 
          amount charged by the contractor.

          With regard to the tenant's assertion that she was never consulted 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GE610151RT

          about the window installation, the Commissioner notes that such 
          consultation/consent is not necessary in this kind of proceeding.

          In connection with the tenant's claim that the cost of said 
          installation, as stated in the owner's application, is greater than 
          the cost stated by the contractor in its original contract, the 
          Commissioner notes that said discrepancy was noticed at the time of 
          processing and that the owner had submitted ample clarification 
          upon request by the Division.  In the original contract, the stated 
          sum was  the cost of installing five hundred and sixty-five 
          windows. However, upon completion of the project, it was found that 
          ten additional windows had been installed, thereby increasing the 
          cost to the amount stated in the owner's application.  This 
          increased cost was substantiated by the submission of an affidavit 
          from the Artcraft Construction Corp. and cancelled checks for the 
          stated amount from the owner.

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

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same is 
          denied, and the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is 


                                                      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