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 
          APPEALS OF                              ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NOS. BE610097RT
          William J. Ibarra and Robert Marrero    and BE610099RT
                                                  DISTRICT             RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S    DOCKET
                                                  NO. BCS000140OM

                                   PETITIONERS
          --------------------------------------x

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING  PETITIONS  FOR  ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW

          On May 11, 1987, the  above-named  tenants  filed  petitions  for
          administrative review of an order issued on April 6,  1987  by  a
          District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as Apartment 1L and Apartment 6E, 1154 Ward Avenue,  Bronx,
          New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on a Major Capital  Improvement
          (MCI).

          The Commissioner is consolidating these two  petitions  and  this
          order is dispositive of both petitions.

          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 petitions for review.

          The owner commenced this  proceeding  on  December  20,  1984  by
          filing on application for a rent increase based on major  capital
          improvements, to wit:  new building-wide thermal windows,  a  new
          burner and boiler, a new  entrance  door,  waterproofing,  a  new
          front sidewalk, repainting of the fire escapes and  hallway,  and
          remodeling the elevator car at a total cost of $162,499.25.

          The owner certified that on July 1, 1985 he  served  each  tenant
          with a copy of the application and placed a copy  of  the  entire
          application including all  required  supplements  and  supporting
          documentation with the resident  superintendent  of  the  subject
          building.

          Tenants affected by the owner's rent  increase  application  were
          afforded an opportunity to interpose answers.  One  tenant  filed
          Docket No. BE610097RT         - 2 -

          an  answer  on  the  merits.   Numerous  tenants  filed   answers
          requesting extensions of the time  period  in  which  to  answer.
          None of these tenants elected  to  follow  up  on  the  extension
          requests and no other answers were received. 







          In the order here under review, the Administrator had  determined
          that the work done on the front sidewalk,  the  painting  of  the
          hallway and fire escapes, and the elevator car remodeling did not 
          qualify as an MCI, but that  the  installation  of  building-wide
          thermal windows, a new boiler and burner, waterproofing and a new 
          entrance door did so qualify.  In so doing, the Administrator had 
          found the owner's  application  to  be  in  compliance  with  the
          relevant  laws  and  regulations  based   upon   the   supporting
          documentation submitted therewith.   Appropriate  rent  increases
          were  allowed  for  the   rent-controlled   and   rent-stabilized
          apartments at the subject premises.

          In the petitions for administrative review, the  tenants  request
          modification of the Administrator's order.   The  tenants  allege
          that the workmanship in the installation of their thermal windows 
          was  poor  and  that  the  installation  of   the   windows   was
          unnecessary.  Further, the tenants allege that  no  new  entrance
          door  was  installed.   Finally,  the  tenants  allege  that  the
          Administrator's calculations of yearly increases add up  to  more
          than the total increase allowed by the Administrator.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that these petitions should be denied.

          Section  2529.6  of  the  Rent  Stabilization  Code  states  that
          administrative review is limited to the  facts  or  the  evidence
          presented before a Rent Administrator as raised in  the  petition
          for review.   The  tenants'  allegations  regarding  the  thermal
          windows and the entrance door are presented for the first time on 
          appeal.  As such, the Commissioner finds that  these  allegations
          are outside the scope of review.  Accordingly, they will  not  be
          considered in these petitions for administrative review.

          The Commissioner notes that the subject premises conta n  ninety-
          five apartments and only two  petitions  for  review  were  filed
          citing poor workmanship.  In addition, a review of  the  agency's
          records reveal no service  complaints  at  the  subject  premises
          either prior to or subsequent to this proceeding.

          Finally,  the  tenants  allege  errors  in  the   Administrator's
          computations.  This allegation is without  merit.   The  apparent
          discrepancy in addition cited by the tenants in  their  petitions
          for review is simply a misreading of the  Administrator's  order.
          The percentage increase referred to by the  tenants  is  for  the
          retroactive portion of the order only.  That amount is  temporary
          and expires when the retroactive amount is recouped by the owner. 
          The portion of the Administrator's order dealing with the  
          Docket No. BE610097RT         - 3 -

          permanent rent increases is correctly added.  No evidence of  any
          calculation errors are presented by the tenants in this case. 

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the  rights
          of the tenants to file a complaint of decreased services,  should
          the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is 







          ORDERED, that these  petitions  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are,
          denied, and that the  Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:

           
                                             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