ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BG 110266 RT
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. BG 110266 RT
: DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. QS 000832 OM
ANDREA GOLDFRIED
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 27, 1987, the above-named tenant filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on July 7, 1987 by a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation
known as Apartment 11W, 99-05 63rd Drive, Rego Park, New York
wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was entitled
to a rent increase based on a Major Capital Improvement (MCI).
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 review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on December 21, 1985 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit: the installation of thermal windows in the
building at a total cost of $223,440.00.
The owner certified that on December 18, 1985, it served each
tenant with a copy of the application and placed a copy including
all required supplements and supporting documentation with the
resident superintendent of the subject building.
Various tenants, including the petitioner, filed a joint
answer objecting to the owner's application. They alleged, among
other things, that many of the new windows were not installed in a
workmanlike manner.
In the order here under review, the Administrator found that
the installation of thermal windows qualified as a major capital
improvement, and allowed appropriate rent increases.
In her petition for administrative review, the tenant states,
among other things, that the landlord had failed to comply with
the service and notice requirements for an MCI application.
Further, the tenant restates the allegation of poor workmanship in
the installation of her windows.
Subsequently, on September 21, 1987, the tenant filed an
application for a rent reduction based upon a diminution of
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BG 110266 RT
services. Among the faulty services alleged in that complaint
(under Docket No. BI 110309 S) were defective windows. In that
case, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
conducted an on-site physical inspection on February 19, 1988. In
his report, the inspector indicated that there was no evidence of
defective windows anywhere in the subject apartment. The tenant
filed a petition for administrative review of that order. The
Commissioner's order in that petition for review (under Docket No.
CE 110101 RT) did not disturb that portion of the Administrator's
order which found no evidence of defective windows.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
First, Section 2529.6 states that the scope of administrative
review is limited to the facts or evidence presented before the
Administrator. The tenant's allegation that the owner failed to
comply with service and notice requirements are presented for the
first time in her petition for review. As such, the Commissioner
will not consider this issue in this order.
The Commissioner notes that even if this issue were to be
determined on the merits, the Administrator's order would not be
reversed on the basis of the owner's alleged failure to comply
with service requirements. The evidence indicates that the
tenants herein were fully notified by virtue of their vigorous and
active participation in the proceeding before the Administrator.
In addition, the Commissioner fully notified the petitioner-tenant
and afforded her every opportunity to inspect the complete record
in this case. Therefore, the tenant's due process rights were
fully protected.
Second, the tenant's claim that the installation of the
thermal windows was not done in a workmanlike manner is without
merit. The independently conducted DHCR physical inspection
indicated no defective windows in the subject apartment.
Accordingly, there is no basis for reversal of the
Administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
