STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. BG 110266 RT  
                                              :         DISTRICT        RENT
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                 NO. QS 000832 OM
               ANDREA GOLDFRIED
                                PETITIONER    : 


               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.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Deputy Commissioner

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name