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
APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NOS. BE610097RT
William J. Ibarra and Robert Marrero and BE610099RT
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
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
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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta