OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

      APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:
                                          :  HC130143RT/HC130199RT/
      VARIOUS TENANTS OF                     HD130033RT/HD130142RT/
      132-40 SANFORD AVENUE                  HD130184RT/HE130090RT/
      ------------------------------------X  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                
                                             DOCKET NO.: CD130199OM


      The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed and/or refiled 
      administrative appeals against an order issued on March 13, 1993 by the 
      Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning 
      the housing accommodations known as 132-40 Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New 
      York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator granted major capital 
      improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized apartments in the 
      subject premises based on the installation of new apartment windows.

      In these petitions the tenants contend, in substance, that the owner 
      replaced the windows to correct defective conditions and should not be 
      "rewarded" therefor; that it is the owner's obligation to repair the 
      building; that the increase should not be permanent; and that the increase 
      is burdensome.  Two tenants raise complaints regarding the quality or 
      adequacy of the window installation.  One tenant asserts that there is an 
      outstanding rent reduction order for her apartment and therefore she should 
      not have to pay the MCI rent increase.

      In response to the petitions, the owner asserts, in substance, that the 
      tenants never objected to the MCI rent increase application and that the 
      rent increase was warranted.

      After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 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 improvements 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.

      It is the well established position of the Division (as reflected in Policy 
      Statement 89-6) that the building-wide installation of all apartment 
      windows and/or public area or lot line windows to replace windows which are 
      25 or more years old constitutes a major capital improvement for which a 
      rent increase may be warranted, provided the owner otherwise so qualifies.


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HC130143RT

      The record discloses that the owner substantiated its application in the 
      proceeding below by submitting to the Administrator documentation in 
      support thereof, including copies of contracts for the improvements, 
      contractor's certifications and cancelled checks.

      Regarding the contention that the owner installed the new windows in order 
      to correct defective conditions, the fact that certain work remedies such 
      conditions does not constitute grounds for the denial of the application, 
      provided the work performed otherwise qualifies as a major capital 
      improvement, and the owner establishes an entitlement to a rent increase 

      As to the two tenants who raised complaints regarding the quality or 
      adequacy of the installation, the Commissioner notes that one tenant 
      (residing in Apartment 4J) failed to raise any objection to the quality or 
      adequacy of the installation while this proceeding was pending before the 
      Rent Administrator.  Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Code, 
      said tenant's allegations in this regard may not be considered now when 
      raised for the first time on appeal.

      With respect to the other tenant (residing in Apartment 2C), the fact that 
      one tenant may have experienced difficulty with said installation is not 
      sufficient grounds to conclude that the owner is not entitled to the MCI 
      rent increase adjustment authorized by the Administrator (while 45 tenants 
      submitted answers in the proceeding below, only one tenant has 
      appropriately questioned the adequacy of the installations on appeal).  
      However, the owner is hereby directed to correct any defective condition 
      brought to its attention in writing, if it has not already done so, 
      and the determination herein is without prejudice to the right of the 
      tenants or any one of them filing an appropriate complaint for a reduction 
      in rent based on a diminution in service, including any current window 
      defects, if the facts so warrant.

      Regarding the contention of the tenant residing in Apartment 4C that she 
      should not have to pay the rent increase because there is an outstanding 
      rent reduction order for her apartment, the Commissioner notes, as 
      reflected in said order, as well in Policy Statement 90-8, that the owner 
      may not collect any increase provided for in the Administrator's order with 
      respect to any individual apartment during the period of time a rent 
      reduction order, based upon a failure to maintain services, is in effect 
      where the effective dates of such rent reduction order is prior to the 
      issuance date of the MCI orders, until such time as there is a finding by 
      DHCR that services have been restored.

      As to the tenants' contention pertaining to the permanent nature of the 
      increase granted, the New York Court of Appeals has concluded that the Rent 
      Stabilization Law authorizes this Division to grant permanent rent 
      increases for MCI's, and that the law does not limit the time during which 
      the increases can be imposed.  In the Matter of Ansonia Residents 
      Association, et al., v. DHCR et al., 75 N.Y. 2d 206, 551 N.Y.S. 2d 871 


          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HC130143RT

      With regard to the contention that the rent increase will be a hardship, 
      the Commissioner is not unmindful of the possibility that the rent increase 
      may prove burdensome to some tenants.  However, the Commissioner is 
      constrained by the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions to
      grant such increases as are warranted.

      A tenant who has a valid Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption Order 
      (SCRIE) is exempted from that portion of the increase which would cause the 
      rent to exceed one-third of the tenant's household monthly disposable 
      income.  A tenant who may be entitled to this benefit may contact the New 
      York City Department of the Aging by calling (212) 240-7000.

      Based on the supporting documentation submitted by the owner herein, the 
      Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator correctly computed the 
      appropriate rent increase based on the proven cost of the installation.  
      The tenants have not established that the rent increase should be revoked.

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

      ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied, and that 
      the order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                           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