DHCR Decisions          Adm. Review Docket No.: BA 430005-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.: BA 430005-RT                                            :               JENNIE LEBOWITZ,                  DRO DOCKET NO.: LCS 000305-OM                              PETITIONER    :        ------------------------------------X                                               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW        On  January  2,  1987  the  above-named  petitioner-tenant  filed  a        Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  of  the  Rent        Administrator dated December 17, 1986.  The order concerned  housing        accommodations located at 180 West 93rd Street, New York,  NY.   The        Administrator granted a rent increase based on the  installation  of        major capital improvements.        The Commissioner has reviewed the record  and  carefully  considered        that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.        The owner commenced this proceeding on November 11, 1984  by  filing        an application for rent increase based on the installation of  major        capital improvements to wit -  installation  of  new  roof  and  new        aluminum replacement windows at a total  cost  of  $149,748.00.   On        January  11,  1985  the  owner  certified  that  all  tenants  whose        interests  might  be  affected  were  served  with  a  copy  of  the        application and answer forms and that a copy of  the  Tenant  Review        Package was placed in the superintendent's office.        Several tenants, of whom  petitioner  was  not  one,  responded  and        objected to the proposed increase.  Some complained that the  window        installation was defective.  A DHCR inspector visited two apartments        on July 18, 1986 and reported that the windows needed recaulking  to        stop leaks.  The owner advised on November 3,  1986  that  when  the        superintendent attempted to do the recaulking, the tenants  said  it        was not necessary.        The Administrator granted the application for all but $12,248.00  of        the total cost  for  the  aluminum  replacement  windows  which  the        Administrator ruled had not been properly substantiated.        In her petition the  tenant  states  that  she  never  received  the        owner's  November  3,  1986  letter  and  did  not  consent  to  the        installation of the windows.  The owner did not file a response.        After careful consideration  of  the  evidence  in  the  record  the        Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.           Adm. Review Docket No.: BA 430005-RT        Rent increases for major  capital  improvements  are  authorized  by        Section 2202.4  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  for  rent        controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the  Rent  Stabilization        Code  for  rent  stabilized  apartments.   Under  rent  control,  an        increase is warranted where there has been  since  July  1,  1970  a        major capital improvement required for the operation,  preservation,        or maintenance of the  structure.   Under  rent  stabilization,  the        improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable  under  the        Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for        the operation, perservation, and maintenance of the  structure;  and        replace an item whose useful life has expired.        The record in the instant case indicates that  the  owner  correctly        complied  with  the  application  procedures  for  a  major  capital        improvement  and  the  Rent  Administrator  properly  computed   the        appropriate rent increases.  The tenant has not established that the        increase should be revoked.  Since  petitioner  did  not  raise  her        objections when the proceeding was  before  the  Administrator  they        cannot be considered for the first time in an administrative  appeal        which, pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, is        limited  to  facts  and  evidence   that   was   before   the   Rent        Administrator.        The Commissioner further notes that the tenant's lack of consent  is        irrelevant to the issue of whether the MCI should have been granted.        Consent is not a factor in the determination of MCI applications.        THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is        ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and        that the Rent Administrator's order  be  and  the  same  hereby  is,        affirmed.        ISSUED:                                                                                                              ELLIOT SANDER                                        Deputy Commissioner