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
    

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