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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: CC210418RT
          APPEAL OF

                    Joseph Cyrus,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: AI230046OM
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On March 8, 1988, the above-named tenant filed a Petition for 
          Administrative Review of an order issued on February 11, 1988, by 
          a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          apartment D5, 377 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, New York 11225, 
          wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was 
          entitled to a rent increase based on major capital improvement.

          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 administrative review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on September 11, 1986 by filing 
          an application for a rent increase based on a major capital 
          improvement, to wit: positive heating system at a total cost of 
          $50,000.00.

          The owner certified that on November 14, 1986 he served each tenant 
          of record, including the petitioner tenant herein, with a copy of 
          the application and placed one copy of the entire application 
          including all required supplements and supporting documentation 
          with the resident superintendent of the subject building. Several 
          tenants responded to the application three of whom raised no valid 
          objection to the increase sought. The petitioner-tenant herein did 
          not submit any response to the owner's application.

          On February 11, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the subject installation qualified as a 
          major capital improvement, determining that the application 





          Adm. Rev.4 Docket No. CC210418RT














          complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the 
          supporting documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing 
          appropriate rent increases for rent stabilized apartments.

          In the Petition for Administrative Review the tenant requests 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and contends, in 
          substance, that his apartment, D5, only receives heat and hot water 
          sporadically. No claim is made by the tenant herein that he did not 
          receive notice of the owner's application.

          In answer to the tenant's petition the owner submitted a sworn 
          statement that heat and hot water are provided for all tenants as 
          required by law.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should denied.

          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent 
          part, that the scope of administrative review is limited to such 
          facts or evidence as was before the Administrator as raised in the 
          petition unless the petitioner can establish that such issues could 
          not reasonably have been offered or raised in the proceeding prior 
          to the issuance of the Administrator's determination.

          There is no indication that the tenant could not have raised the 
          issue of the sporadic heat and hot water in the subject apartment 
          before the Administrator in the proceeding below nor has the 
          petitioner submitted any explanation for his failure to do so. 
          Accordingly, the issue sought to be raised by the petition is not 
          within the scope of the Commissioner's review of this proceeding 
          and may not be considered on the merits.

          The Commissioner notes that no heat and hot water service 
          complaints for the said address were pending during the time the 
          owner's application was being processed.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenant's 
          right to file a heat and hot water service complaint wherein the 
          matter of whether heat and hot water are only sporadically provided 
          may be addressed, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is






          Adm. Rev. Docket No. CC210418RT


          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied, and 






          the Rent 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