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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NO. BG110284RT
Katie Weinberg DISTRICT RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 17, 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 3K, 99-40 63rd Road, 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.
Numerous tenants, including the tenant of the subject apartment,
filed a joint answer to the owner's application in which no
assertion was made that the tenants were not properly served with
the application. In addition, several tenants, not including the
petitioner, filed individual answers.
Docket No. BG110284RT - 2 -
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 alleges poor workmanship in the installation
of her windows.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
First, The Commissioner finds that the tenant's due process
rights were adequately protected. The record indicates that the
tenants were fully notified since they actively and vigorously
participated in the proceeding before the Administrator.
Moreover, upon administrative review, the Commissioner fully
notified the petitioner-tenant and afforded her every opportunity
to inspect the complete record in this case.
Second, Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code states that
the scope of administrative review is limited to the facts or
evidence presented before the Administrator. The issue of poor
workmanship in installing the windows raised by the petitioner in
this case are presented for the first time by the tenant in her
petition for review. As such, the Commissioner will not consider
Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
petition for review should be denied.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
NOTE: This order and opinion is without prejudice to the tenant's
right to file an application for a rent reduction, based on a
decrease in services, if warranted.