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.: DJ210394RT
APPEAL OF
HARRY RODRIGUEZ
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BI230214OM
PETITIONER
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 25, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely re-
filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order
issued on July 11, 1989, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 407 14th Street,
Apt. 3R, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on
the installation of 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 September 30, 1987, by
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of new prime windows at a total cost of $12,823.00.
The tenant did not submit an objection to the owner's MCI
application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On July 11, 1989, 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 allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
In this petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that the
windows have been replaced twice since 1980; that the tenants
should not be paying for the MCI herein; and that the tenants were
not given the opportunity to answer to the application.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DJ-210394-RT
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in
substance, that notice of the application was provided as evidenced
by the landlord's certification of such dated November 13, 1987,
which indicated that the tenant review package was available at
DHCR as no such office space was available on the premises (mailing
receipts submitted as evidence); and that the tenant's PAR should
be dismissed since it has complied with all DHCR directives
concerning the application.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments. Under rent control, an increase is
warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970, a major capital
improvement required for the operation, preservation, or
maintenance of the structure.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that notice of
the application was provided as certified by the owner. In
addition, on June 14, 1989, notices were sent to tenants by DHCR.
These notices elicited one (1) response which acknowledged the MCI
herein as well done. Hence, due process was afforded to the
tenants appropriately.
Fundamental principles of the administrative appeal process
prohibit a party from raising issues on appeal which were not
raised below. Thus, the issues raised herein are not within the
scope of the Commissioner's review.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the New York City Rent Regulations,
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
|
