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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EJ 130132-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.: BL 130149-OM
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
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
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
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.