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.: DI410062RT
          APPEAL OF                                            

          Richard Azzolini and Elaine Hughes,
                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                  PETITIONERS      DOCKET NO.: LCS000695OM
          -----------------------------------X

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The petitioner-tenants  timely  filed  an  administrative  appeal
          against  an  order  issued  on  August  1,  1989,  by  the   Rent
          Administrator  (92-31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York)
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 216 West 102 Street, 
          New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator 
          granted major capital improvement (MCI) rent  increases  for  the
          controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises based 
          on the installation of apartment windows at the premises.

          The owner commenced this  proceeding  below  by  filing  its  MCI
          application in August of 1985. In support of its application, the 
          owner submitted copies of the contract, contractor's certification, 
          affidavits, and cancelled checks.

          The Rent Administrator issued the order here under review, finding 
          that the installations 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 the rent stabilized and rent controlled 
          tenants.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants state, in substance,  that  the
          cost of the installation is unreasonable  and  is  in  excess  of
          industry standards.

          In response to the  tenants'  petition  the  owner  contends,  in
          substance, that the cost per window in this application  is  even
          less than that which J-51 allows and is certainly reasonable.

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


          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DI410062RT 













          Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the  rent
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for the rent stabilized apartments. Under rent  control,  an
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970  an
          MCI required for the operation, preservation, and maintenance  of
          the structure. 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.

          It  is  the  established  position  of  the  Division  that   the
          installation of  apartment  windows,  as  in  the  instant  case,
          qualifies as an MCI.

          The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner 
          fully substantiated its application and correctly complied with the 
          application procedures for an MCI, and that the Rent Administrator 
          properly computed the appropriate rent increase. On the other hand, 
          the tenants have not submitted any evidence  to  prove  that  the
          increase should be revoked.

          The Commissioner further notes, as confirmed by the record that the 
          petitioner-tenants of apartment 7B and 7D were served with notice 
          of the instant application,  but  that  they  failed  to  respond
          thereto. Fundamental  principles  of  the  administrative  appeal
          process and Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code prohibit 
          a party from raising issues on appeal which were not raised below. 
          The tenants of said apartments could have raised the very  issues
          before the Rent Administrator which they now seek to raise for the 
          first time on appeal. Accordingly, the Commissioner is constrained 
          to foreclose consideration of these issues in this proceeding.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
          Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          the City of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal 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