EH 620439-RT
                                  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.:   
                                                  EH              620439-RT
             GUILLERMO ARACIL et al.
             and THE TENANTS ASSOCIATION   
             of 1280 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      BE 630065-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On August 21, 1990, the above-named tenants and tenants' associa 
          tion timely refiled a petition for administrative  review  of  an
          order issued on June 5, 1990 by a Rent  Administrator  concerning
          various housing accommodations in  the  premises  known  as  1280
          Commonwealth Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein  the  Administrator
          granted  a  major  capital  improvement  rent  increase  for  the
          installation of  a  new  boiler-burner  and  replacement  windows
          building-wide.

          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 the petition for review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on July 6, 1987 by filing  an
          application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve 
          ment (MCI) at a total cost of $111,700.00.

          Various tenants submitted answers alleging that the windows  were
          not working properly and one tenant added that the hot water  was
          inadequate for her apartment.

          The owner responded stating that the  boiler/burner  and  windows
          were in operative working condition.

          On May 10 and 11,  1990  a  Division  of  Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) inspection was conducted and it was reported  that


          the windows in apartments 5-B and 6-J were not working properly.
          The windows in other apartments  were  found  to  be  functioning
          well. One tenant who had asserted that the windows in his  apart-
          ment were defective failed to keep an appointment for the 
          inspection of his apartment.  Further, although  one  tenant  had
          complained that the hot water was inadequate  in  her  apartment,
          the agency inspection revealed otherwise.

          On June 5, 1990, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here







          EH 620439-RT
          under review, finding that the installation qualified as a  major
          capital improvement, determining that  the  application  complied
          with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the  supporting
          documentation submitted by the owner,  and  allowing  appropriate
          rent increases for  rent-controlled  and  rent-stabilized  apart-
          ments, with the exception of Apartments 5-B and  6-J.   The  Rent
          Administrator's order exempted these  apartments  from  the  rent
          increase until all repairs are corrected.

          In the petition for administrative review, several tenants allege 
          that the boiler/burner is not working properly  as  on  occasion,
          they assert, there is a  lack  of  heat  and  insufficient  water
          pressure.  The tenants further assert that there are water  leaks
          in certain apartment lines preventing water  use.   Finally,  the
          tenants contend that the windows are not working properly in num 
          erous apartments.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner certified that on September 
          17, 1987 it served each tenant with a copy of the  entire  M.C.I.
          application including all  required  supplements  and  supporting
          documentation and filed the same with the resident superintendent 
          of the subject building.  The record reveals that  although  sev-
          eral tenants responded to the owner's application asserting  that
          the windows were not functioning properly, the agency  inspection
          conducted subsequent to the tenant's responses  indicated  but  a
          few malfunctions.  The windows of apartments  5-B  and  6-J  were
          found to be malfunctioning and the Administrator's  order  issued
          exempting these apartments  from  the  rent  increase  until  the
          windows are repaired.  

          According to established principles of the administrative  review
          appeals process a party may not raise an issue for the first time 
          on administrative review if that issue could reasonably have been 
          raised before the administrator.  In this proceeding, the  record



          shows that although several tenants raise the issue of inadequate 
          hot water in their petition, they did  not  make  this  assertion
          when this proceeding was before the administrator and the Commis 
          sioner will not consider this issue for the first time on appeal. 
          The Commissioner further notes  that  although  one  tenant  com-
          plained of inadequate hot water when this proceeding  was  before
          the administrator, an agency inspection  revealed  that  the  hot
          water in her apartment was adequate.

          Regarding the assertion upon administrative review that there are 
          water leaks, the Commissioner finds that this is not a  complaint
          pertinent to the order here under review, and the issue  was  not
          raised before the Rent Administrator.  The  tenants  are  advised
          that this order is issued without prejudice  to  their  right  to
          file complaints regarding this and the matter of allegedly insuf 
          ficient hot water if the facts warrant.  Accordingly, the Commis 
          sioner finds that the Administrator's order should be affirmed.








          EH 620439-RT

          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, the Rent and Rehabilitation Law, and the Rent and  Eviction
          Regulations for New York City, it is         

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the order of the Rent Administrator  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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