Adm. Review Docket No: CG 930150-RT
                                 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 
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. CG-930150-RT
                                            :  
          M.A.K. ENTERPRISES, INC.,- Owner     DRO DOCKET NO. MAL-8-3-0017 OM

                              PETITIONER    :  TENANT: SHIRLEY PATTERSON
        ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On July 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner filed  a  Petition  for
        Administrative Review against an order issued on June  14,  1988  by
        the Rent Administrator, 55 Church Street,  White  Plains,  New  York
        concerning the housing accommodations  known  as  105  South  Fulton
        Avenue,  Apartment  E-9,  Mount  Vernon,  New   York   wherein   the
        Administrator determined that the  owner  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 review.

        The owner commenced this proceeding on December 16, 1986  by  filing
        an application  for  a  rent  increase  based  on  a  major  capital
        improvement consisting of waterproofing  and  pointing  at  a  total
        cost of $27,300.00.

        The owner certified that on January 28, 1987, it served each  tenant
        with a copy of the application and  placed  a  copy  of  the  entire
        application  including  all  required  supplements  and   supporting
        documentation  with  the  resident  superintendent  of  the  subject
        building.

        Although afforded the opportunity to do so, the tenant did not  file
        an objection to the owner's application.

        On June 14, 1988, the  Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order  here
        under review finding that the  installation  qualified  as  a  major
        Capital improvement, determining that the application complied  with
        the  relevant  laws  and  regulations  based  upon  the   supporting
        documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate 
        rent increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments.

        In the petition  for  administrative  review,  the  tenant  requests
        reversal of the Administrator's  order  and  alleges  that  improper
        water  proofing  has  caused  mildew  and  chipped  paint   on   the
        apartment's walls.

        In answer to the petition, the owner alleges defects in a small area 
        have been corrected.
        The Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  petition  should  be
        denied.







        Adm. Review Docket No: CG 930150-RT

        The record in the instant case indicates that  the  owner  correctly
        complied  with  the  application  procedures  for  a  major  capital
        improvement  and   the   Administrator   properly   calculated   the
        appropriate rent increases.  The tenant has not established that the 
        increase should be  revoked.   Neither  the  tenant  who  filed  the
        instant petition nor any other tenant raised any problems  regarding
        the waterproofing when the matter was before the Administrator.  The 
        tenant had ample opportunity to bring any defects to  the  attention
        of the owner and the Administrator.  The tenant  did  not  make  any
        complaints.

        Accordingly, the Commissioner finds it is inappropriate to  consider
        for the first  time  in  this  administrative  appeal  the  tenant's
        allegation that the waterproofing is  defective.   Furthermore,  the
        tenant did not reply to the owner's assertion that minor defects had 
        been corrected.

        This order is without prejudice to the  tenant's  right  to  file  a
        complaint of decreased services, if the facts so warrant.

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection Regulations  and
        the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the State of New York, it is

        ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  denied  and
        that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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