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.: GE610151RT
APPEAL OF
ANNETTE STRACHAN
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: EC630049OM
----------------------------------
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
improvement.
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
2
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
affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
