STATE OF NEW YORK
                       DIVISION OF HOUSING AN 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.: BH430026RT

            Francesca Castellanos                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                   PETITIONER      DOCKET NO.: AA500016OM
          -----------------------------------X

             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
          Association.

          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
          Eviction Regulations.

          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
          warrant.

          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 
          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