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.: BB 130065-RT
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
CHARLES POLIZZANO, DOCKET NO.: QCS 000902-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 9, 1987, the above-named tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on January 15, 1987, by a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apartment 5B, 41-16 47th Avenue, Sunnyside, 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 the petition for administrative review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on September 10, 1985 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a major capital improvement, to
wit: new aluminum windows (building-wide) at a total cost of $54,872.00.
The owner certified that on December 11, 1985, he served each tenant with
a copy of the application and placed one copy of the entire application
including all required supplements and supporting documentation with the
resident superintendent of the subject building. Various tenants
responded to the application objecting to the increase.
On January 15, 1987, the District Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installation qualified as a major capital
improvement, determining that the application complied with the relevant
laws and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by
the owner, and allowing appropriate rent increases for rent stabilized
In the Petition for Administrative Review, the tenant requests reversal of
the District Rent Administrator's order and disputes the owner's
entitlement to a rent increase for new windows in view of an alleged prior
rent increase for the installation of storm windows and screens, six years
earlier, to his then existing windows.
In answer to the tenant's petition, the owner alleges that he never
received a copy of the tenant's petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this
petition should be denied.
DOCKET NUMBER: BB 130065-RT
The record discloses that certification of services of notice of the
applications was filed with the Division in accordance with the rules and
procedures then in effect. No claim is made by the tenant herein that he
did not receive notice of same.
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides, in pertinent part,
that the scope of administrative review is limited to such facts or
evidence as was before the Administrator as raised in the petition unless
the petitioner can establish that such issues could not reasonably have
been offered or raised in the proceeding prior to the issuance of the
There is no indication that the tenant could not have raised the issue as
to the prior installation of windows in the subject apartment before the
Administrator in the proceeding below nor has the tenant submitted any
explanation for his failure to do so. Accordingly, the issue sought to be
raised by the petition is not within the scope of the Commissioner's
review of this proceeding and may not be considered on its merits.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right
to file a rent overcharge complaint wherein the matter of whether the
owner is collecting excessive rent for window improvements due to the
alleged unilateral discontinuance of storm windows may be addressed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that
the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner