STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: CD110166RT
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: AG130068OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 27, 1988 the above-named tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on April 15, 1988 by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as
Apartment 2C 83-44 Lefferts Blvd, Queens, NY, 11415 wherein the
Rent Administrator determined that the landlord was entitled to a
rent increase based on a 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 landlord commenced this proceeding on July 17, 1986 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on a major capital
improvement, to wit: new aluminum thermal pane windows, less
screens, at a total cost of $95,080.00.
The landlord certified that he served each tenant including the
petitioner, with a copy of the application and that he placed one
copy of the entire application including all required supplements
and supporting documentation with the resident superintendent of
the subject building. Four tenants responded to the application.
The petitioner herein did not submit any response to the
On April 15, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the window installation qualified as
major capital improvement, determining that the application
complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the
supporting documentation submitted by the landlord and allowing
appropriate rent increases for rent regulated apartments.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. CD110166.RT
In the Petition for Administrative Review the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and contends, in
substance, that the windows were not properly installed and that he
had already paid increases for screens and metal frames. No claim
is made by the tenant herein that he did not receive notice of the
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
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
issues as to the prior installation of window screens and metal
frames in the subject apartment and, improper installation of
windows 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 the landlord has deducted the sum of
$3,420.00 for the installation of the window screens and that this
amount is not included by the landlord in the total claimed cost of
the subject installation.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA