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 110273-RT
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: QCS 000795-OM
       CARMEN ALTAMIRANO,
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

                  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL


     On July 1, 1987 the above-named petitioner-tenant filed an  Administrative
     Appeal against an order issued on June  17,  1987  by  the  District  Rent
     Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning  the
     housing accommodations known as 36-07 Steinway Street, Long  Island  City,
     New York, Apartment 1C.

     The appealed order of the  District  Rent  Administrator  determined  that
     certain specified installations qualified as  major  capital  improvements
     (MCI's), excepting electric switch  and  water  services,  which  did  not
     constitute MCI's and chimney improvements and waterproofing, which  lacked
     supporting expenditure documentation.  All other installations were  found
     to have complied with the relevant laws and regulations,  based  upon  the
     supporting documentation and appropriate rent increases  were,  therefore,
     granted for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments.

     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 administrative appeal.

     In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that  the  owner  did
     not do the work, as stated, at the District Rent Office level and that the 
     appealed order should be revoked.  

     In response, the  owner  stated  that  the  petitioner's  allegations  are
     baseless and that the petition should be denied, because approved MCI rent 
     increases have been substantiated at the District Rent Office level.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

     The owner commenced the proceeding below, on June 20, 1985, by  filing  an
     application  to  increase  the  rentals  for  rent  controlled  and   rent
     stabilized apartments, based on the installation of a  MCI  consisting  of
     improvements: new chimney and roof, new entrance doors, new burner,  water
     service, electric switch, waterproofing  and  roof  supplies.   The  owner
     claimed costs of $19,381.40 for this installation.










          DOCKET NUMBER: BG 110273-RT
     The owner certified, that on November 7,  1985,  it  served  all  affected
     tenants with a copy of its application form RA-79, appropriate notices and 
     documents and further placed a copy of the entire  application,  including
     all required supplements and supporting documentation  with  the  resident
     superintendent of the subject building.

     None of the tenants responded to this notice.

     A review of the record reveals that  the  owner  properly  filed  the  MCI
     application in the proceeding below and no showing  to  the  contrary  was
     made by the petitioner.

     The Commissioner finds that the order of the District  Rent  Administrator
     and the rent increase adjustments provided  therein,  were  determined  in
     accordance with the  established  rules,  regulations  and  administrative
     procedures in effect at the time the work was performed, the  applications
     filed and the orders under appeal issued.

     However, absent any response from the tenant to the  owner's  application,
     there were no issues raised below;  and  therefore,  none  of  the  issues
     raised in the petition are properly within the scope of review on  appeal,
     as they are raised for the first time on appeal.

     This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant  filing  applications
     with the Division for rent reductions, based on a decrease in services, if 
     the facts so warrant.

     The Commissioner notes that in an order and opinion issued on May 31, 1991 
     under Docket No. BG 110093-RT, the Commissioner  denied  another  tenant's
     administrative appeal against the District Rent Administrator's  order  in
     which similar objections were raised.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
     Regulations for New York City and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,  it
     is

     ORDERED, that this administrative appeal  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     denied and the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and  the  same
     hereby is, affirmed.

     ISSUED:








                                                                   
                                     ELLIOT SANDER
                                     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