STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DJ410019RT
MARIA IRIZARRY RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF430053OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 10, 1989, the above named petitioner-tenant timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
September 21, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 564 West 160th Street, Apartment 32, New York, 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
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 June 8, 1987, by initially filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of new prime
windows at a total cost of $86,012.00. The unsubstantiated cost of $185.00
was disallowed resulting in a total approved cost of $85,827.00.
The tenant did not submit an objection to the owner's application although
afforded the opportunity to do so.
On September 21, 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 she did not
receive any prior notice of the owner's application; and that she should
not be held responsible for retroactive payments.
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in substance and
in pertinent part, that notice of the application was served on the tenants
by the owner on October 1, 1987, and by DHCR on August 28, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner
certified that service upon all tenants was completed on October 1, 1987,
and that a copy of the tenant review package was placed in the
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DJ410019RT
Superintendent's office at such time. As no responses were received by
DHCR, a subsequent notice was sent by DHCR on August 26, 1988, to a random
selection of tenants eliciting no responses again. Thus, it shall be
presumed that due process was afforded to the tenants with respect to
notice of the application since only one (1) tenant out of thirty-eight
(38) raised an allegation to the contrary.
The petitioner was in possession of the premises when the owner served the
tenants but did not respond thereto. In accordance with Section 2529.6 of
the Rent Stabilization Code, issues raised for the first time on appeal are
not within the scope of the Commissioner's review.
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA