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.:  DF130100RT
          APPEAL OF
                    LEON ECHEVERRI
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  AL130200OM

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

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On June 5, 1989 the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          May 2, 1989, by a Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          48-11 45th Street, Woodside, NY, apartment 1C, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent 
          increase based on a major capital improvement (MCI).

          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 this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on December 6, 1986, by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of replacement windows at a total cost of $21,015.00.

          The tenant did not submit an objection to the owner's MCI 
          application although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On May 2, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review finding that the replacement windows 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, the tenant contends, in substance, that the 
          windows replaced by the owner are not aluminum thermal windows but 
          vinyl replacement windows.  Also the petitioner argues the number 
          of rooms used by the Administrator in his calculation is incorrect.  
          It is alleged that the owner has made modifications resulting in a 
          lower room count.













          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DF-130100-RT

          In this petition, the tenant lists several other tenants as parties 
          joining this action, but fails to substantiate his authorization.

          In response to the petition, the owner contends, in substance, that 
          the room count used by the Administrator is correct.

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

          At the outset the Commissioner notes as confirmed by the record 
          that the tenant was served with notice of the MCI application and 
          that he failed to respond thereto.  Fundamental principals of the 
          administrative appeal process and Section 2529.6 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code prohibit a party from raising issues on appeal 
          which could have been raised below, but which were not.

          The tenant of said apartment could have raised the very issues 
          before the Rent Administrator which they seek to raise for the very 
          first time on appeal.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner is constrained to foreclose 
          consideration of these issues in this appeal proceeding.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          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:



                                                       ____________________
                                                         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