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.:  CE510029RT
          APPEAL OF
                    BELKIS CARDONA                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AL530133OM

                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 10, 1988, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          May 6, 1988, by a Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          2-12 Broadway Terrace, New York, New York, apartment #1. 

          The owner commenced this proceeding on December 19, 1986, by 
          initially filing a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase 
          application predicated on the installation of a new roof at a total 
          claimed cost of $5,500.00.

          On February 20, 1987 the owner certified that it had completed 
          service on all tenants, including the petitioner, with a copy of 
          said MCI application and left a copy of same, for tenants' review, 
          in the Superintendent's office located at 2-12 Broadway Terrace.  
          On February 3, 1988 DHCR served the petitioner with notice of the 
          owner's MCI application, but no response was received from the 
          tenant.

          On May 6, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI, 
          determining that the application complied with the relevant laws 
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and authorizing rent increases for rent stabilized 
          apartments.

          In this Petition for Administrative Review, the tenant requests 
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges, in 
          substance, that the roof installation is defective as he 
          experiences water seepage in his apartment.  

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CE-510029-RT

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by 
          Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized 
          apartments.  Under rent stabilization, the improvement must 
          generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue 
          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the operation, 
          preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item 
          whose useful life has expired.

          It is the established position of the Division that the work 
          performed meets the definitional requirements of an MCI for which 
          a rent increase may be warranted.  The record shows that the owner 
          submitted copies of the contract, contractors' certification and 
          cancelled checks which indicate that the owner correctly complied 
          with the applicable procedures for an MCI rent increase, and that 
          the increase was properly computed based on the proven cost of the 
          installation.

          The Commissioner notes, as confirmed by the record, that the tenant 
          of apartment 1 was served by the owner on February 20, 1987 by the 
          Administrator on February 3, 1988 with notice of the instant 
          application, but that said tenant failed to respond thereto.  
          Fundamental principles of the administrative appeal process and 
          Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code prohibit a party from 
          raising issues on appeal which were not raised below.  The tenant 
          of the said apartment could have raised the very issues before the 
          Rent Administrator which he seeks to raise for the first time on 
          appeal.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is constrained to foreclose 
          consideration of these issues in this appeal proceeding.

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

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is 
          denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                        Deputy Commissioner








                                          2
    

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