ART 09811 Q; ART 10031 Q
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.: ART 09811 Q;
ART 10031 Q
DRO DOCKET NO.: QCS 000863 OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
On May 1, 1986 the above-named petitioner-tenant filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on April 16, 1986
by the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New
York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 148-07/35
Bayside Avenue, Flushing, New York, Apartment 14U, wherein the
Administrator granted Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent
increases for the controlled and stabilized apartments in the
subject premises based on the replacement of the roof and
walkways at the premises.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an MCI
application with the Administrator based on the replacement of
the roof, the walkways, and sidewalks at the subject building.
Three tenants (not including the petitioner herein) objected to
the application, stating that the maintenance of the sidewalks
and walkways is the responsibility of the landlord, and the cost
of same should not be passed on to the tenants.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,
partially granted the owner's application, disallowing increases
for the replacement of the sidewalks as not constituting an MCI.
Inadvertently, two docket numbers were assigned to the
petitioner's appeal against the Administrator's order. The two
dockets are consolidated in this proceeding for a uniform
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant contends, in substance, that:
(A) The owner is increasing the rent for fixing
the roof which leaked for eight months,
causing considerable property damage;
(B) The stove is defective; and
ART 09811 Q; ART 10031 Q
(C) The shower is defective.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeals should be denied.
The record discloses that the owner substantiated its MCI
application in the proceeding below by submitting to the
Administrator documentation in support of the application,
including copies of the contractors' proposals, certifications,
and cancelled checks for the work in question.
Furthermore, the petitioner's contentions are raised for the
first time on this appeal, and therefore cannot be considered
herein. In addition, these contentions (the roof leak prior to
the improvement, the stove, and the shower) do not negate the
validity of the work in question.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that
the Administrator's order was correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Rent Stabilization Code and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeals be, and the same hereby
are denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA