STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AN COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK, 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BH430026RT
Francesca Castellanos RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: AA500016OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 8, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed an
administrative appeal against an order issued on July 7, 1987 by
the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 503 West 169th
Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent
Administrator granted in part the owner's major capital improvement
(MCI) rent increase application.
On August 25, 1987, the petitioner-tenant amended her appeal by
submitting the signatures of thirteen additional tenants, claiming
that she was filing the appeal as a representative of the Tenant
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 13, 1986, by filing
its MCI application based on the installation of a new roof,
telephone intercom system, door chime, sidewalk, sidewalk repair
around the building, and painting of the fire escape, at a total
cost of $11,510.00. The owner subsequently submitted a
certification of service which stated that on April 4, 1986,
service of the MCI application was completed upon the tenants.
Several tenants filed objections to the owner's application,
however the petitioner-tenant did not file an objection.
On July 7, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review, finding that the new roof and intercom system qualified as
MCIs, determining that the application complied with the relevant
laws and regulations based upon the supporting documentation
submitted by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent
controlled and rent stabilized tenants.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH430026RT
The Rent Administrator found that the owner was not entitled to
receive a rent increase for the door chime, sidewalk, sidewalk
repair around the building and the painting of the fire escapes as
those items did not qualify as MCIs as defined in Section 2522.4 of
the Rent Stabilization Code and Section 2202.4 of the Rent and
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant states, in substance, that the
intercom system is defective; that the roof door is not secured;
there is no door to the front entrance to the basement; and that
the roof still leaks.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this administrative appeal
should be denied.
The tenant timely filed her petition on August 8, 1987. On August
25, 1987, the petitioner-tenant resubmitted her petition and
included the signatures of thirteen additional tenants, claiming
that she was a representative of the Tenants' Association and that
her appeal should be considered a joint petition.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioner-tenant did not submit
proper written authorization to file the appeal as a representative
of the Tenants' Association, but merely submitted the signatures of
thirteen tenants on a document named, "List of Tenants Who Belong
to the Tenants Association of 503 West 169 Street". Furthermore,
these tenants' signatures were not delivered to the Division until
August 25, 1987 - more than 35 days after the issuance date of the
order appealed herein. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the
petitioner-tenant lacked the authority to file the instant appeal
on behalf of the thirteen additional tenants, and in any event,
these thirteen tenants did not join in the appeal within the 35 day
filing period. Therefore, the August 25, 1987 submission by the
petitioner-tenant will not be considered by the Commissioner.
The record reveals that the petitioner-tenant failed to raise any
objection to the quality or adequacy of the installation or to
participate in any way while this proceeding was pending before the
Administrator. Accordingly, the Commissioner will not entertain
this tenant's objections raised for the first time on appeal.
The Commissioner notes that the Division records indicate that
various tenants filed two separate building-wide service complaints
(BC530113B and CF530053B), one filed during the pendency of the
proceeding before the Administrator and one filed subsequent to the
Administrator's order. The Commissioner further notes that neither
of those building-wide service complaints mentioned any roof leaks
or defective intercom.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BH430026RT
The determination herein is without prejudice to the right of the
tenant to file an application with this Division for a rent
reduction based on a diminution in services, if the facts so
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the
Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
the City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
Joseph A. D'Agosta