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.: DJ410019RT
                                          :  
         MARIA IRIZARRY                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: BF430053OM
                            PETITIONER    : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

            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 
      (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 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.

      ISSUED:












                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                           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