DHCR Decisions                                 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     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EJ 130132-RO                                         :                                              DRO DOCKET NO.: BL 130149-OM       MICHAEL DRIS                           PETITIONER    :     ------------------------------------X                                       ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     On October 17, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a petition  for     Administrative Review against an order issued September 26,  1990  by  the     Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations located at 28-04     33rd Street, Astoria, New York, wherein the  District  Rent  Administrator     determined that the building-wide installation of new replacement  windows     constituted a major capital improvement (MCI) for which  a  rent  increase     for rent controlled tenants only was warranted.  A rent increase for  rent     stabilized tenants was disallowed because the application  was  not  filed     within two the years of completion of the installation as required by  the     Rent Stabilization Code.     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue     raised by the administrative appeal.     This proceeding was originally commenced on December  23,  1987  when  the     owner filed an application for a rent increase based on  a  major  capital     improvement.  Specifically, the owner stated  that  between  September  2,     1983 and December 12, 1983, it installed new replacement windows building     wide at a total cost of $28,550.00.     The owner supplemented the application with  documentation  substantiating     the improvement including copies of the vendor's  contract  and  cancelled     checks.     Several tenants joined in an answer  to  the  application  in  which  they     indicated that the windows  had  been  satisfactorily  installed.   A  few     tenants asserted that the owner had begun collecting rent increases ($5.00     per window per month) for the window installation prior  to  their  having     received notification that the DHCR had approved the increase.     On September 26, 1990 the Rent Administrator issued an order in  which  it     was found that the installation of new replacement  windows  building-wide     was in compliance with the definition  of  a  major  capital  improvement.     However, the Administrator found that  the  owner's  application  must  be     denied because the application exceeded the two year period  afforded  for     filing subsequent to the installation under the Rent Stabilization           DOCKET NUMBER: EJ 130132-RO     Code and therefore approved a rent increase of $7.00 per  room  per  month     for the rent controlled tenants only.     In its petition the owner requests that the  order  issued  September  26,     1990, be reevaluated so that "the proper lawful increases can be passed on     to his tenants."     Several tenants submitted answers to the owner's  petition.   Six  tenants     asserted that the owner's petition was 'correct' and should not be denied.     Three tenants responded stating in substance that in the  spring  of  1984     they had begun paying an additional $5.00 per  window  per  month  without     ever having received any DHCR notification of approval for this increase.     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  for  Administrative     Review should be denied.     Section 2522.4 (a)(8) provides that no MCI increases will  be  granted  by     the DHCR unless an application is filed no later than two years after  the     completion of the installation or improvement  unless  the  applicant  can     demonstrate that the application could not be made within  the  two  years     due to delay,  beyond  the  applicant's  control,  in  obtaining  required     governmental approvals for which the applicant has applied within such two     year period.  This section was first promulgated by the Rent Stabilization     Code, which became effective on May  1,  1987  and  first  implemented  by     official extension on August 1, 1987.  Owners  clearly  were  afforded  an     opportunity  to  file  for  major  capital  improvements  which  had  been     installed more than two years before.     The record reveals that the installation of the windows was  completed  in     December 1983 and the owner filed its application  more  than  four  years     later  on  December  23,  1987,  and  nearly   five   months   after   the     implementation of Section 2522.4(a)(8),  with  no  excuse  given  for  the     delay.     The Commissioner finds that the owner failed to file the  MCI  application     within two years from the completion date of the installation  which  bars     the collection of approved MCI costs  from  all  of  the  Rent  Stabilized     tenants.     The Rent Administrator's order is correct in all respects.     THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Eviction  Regulations  and     the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is     ORDERED, that this petition be and the  same  hereby  is  denied  and  the     District Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.     ISSUED:                                                                                                               ELLIOT SANDER                                          Deputy Commissioner