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
      APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:EB 110317-RT
                                          :              EB 130356-RT
         VARIOUS TENANTS                                 EB 110363-RT
                                                         EB 110364-RT
                            PETITIONERS   :              EB 110369-RT
      ------------------------------------X              EB 110392-RT
                                                         ED 110363-RT
                                                         EE 120207-RT
                                                         EE 110346-RT
                                                         EE 110389-RT
                                                         EE 110391-RT
                                                         EE 110392-RT

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

      The petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative appeals against an order 
      issued on January 12, 1992 by the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall 
      Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 
      11-15 46th Road, Long Island City, 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 new windows and oil burner at the premises.

      The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application in 
      July of 1987.  In support of its application, the owner submitted copies of 
      contracts, government approvals, contractor's statements and cancelled 
      checks.

      The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, stated that various 
      tenants responded objecting to the increase but did not cite any specific 
      complaints pertaining to the installation.

      On appeal, the petitioner-tenants states, in substance, that A) their 
      apartments were not properly registered with DHCR, as a result of which the 
      owner should not be entitled to any major capital improvement rent increase 
      in this building; B) the owner has failed to provide adequate heat as 
      evidenced by the owner having been fined $1,500.00 on March 24, 1989 by the 
      Civil Court of the City of New York, County of Queens, Housing Part 18, 
      Order and Judgment Index # HT202-89, and C) the windows were improperly 
      installed resulting in cold air and water seepage.










          DOCKET NUMBER: EB 110317-RT, et al.
      In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner filed an answer stating, 
      in substance, that a) the tenants' statements that the apartments was not 
      registered with DHCR has no basis in fact (the owner submitted certified 
      copies of the 1984 registration); b) the heat and hot water case referred 
      to a situation in one of the top floor apartments with respect to which the 
      owner stated that the heating system was operating at the time, but that 
      apartment had a temperature of 62 degrees instead 68 degrees when the 
      outside street temperature was 34 degrees; that this was an instance of an 
      electronic control failure, which was immediately corrected; and that the 
      heating system is in good working condition and proper heat is provided to 
      the apartments at all times.

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

      The Commissioner notes that the record of this proceeding reveals that the 
      petitioner-tenants failed to raise before the Rent Administrator the issues 
      which they seek to raise for the first time in the context of this 
      administrative appeal proceeding.

      Fundamental principles of the administrative appeal process prohibit 
      parties from raising issues on appeal which they failed to raise below as 
      the petitioner-tenants could have raised the very issues before the Rent 
      Administrator which they seek to raise for the first time on appeal.  
      Accordingly, the Commissioner is constrained to foreclose consideration of 
      these issues in this appeal proceeding.

      As the tenants' contention with respect to the maintenance of services, a 
      review of Division records discloses that there were no rent reductions 
      orders outstanding against the subject premises based on the owner's 
      failure to maintain services of a building-wide nature nor were there any 
      heat or hot water complaints pending against the subject premises at the 
      time the Administrator's order was issued.  The determination herein is 
      without prejudice to the right of the tenants to file a service complaint 
      with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, if the facts now so 
      warrant.

      The Commissioner further notes that a review of Division records discloses 
      that the subject premises was registered for 1984 and all subsequent years 
      at the time the Administrator's order was issued.  The owner was not 
      required to file an annual apartment registration with respect to those 
      apartments which were then subject to Rent Control jurisdiction as was the 
      case with respect to various apartments involved herein.  The owner is 
      cautioned that the collection of a rent increase from any apartment for 
      which a requisite annual apartment registrations was not filed may 
      constitute a rent overcharge and the determination herein is without 
      prejudice to the right of the tenants or any one of them filing an 
      appropriate complaint with the Division, if the facts so warrant.




          DOCKET NUMBER: EB 110317-RT, et al.
      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 the administrative appeals be, and the same hereby are 
      denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is 
      affirmed.

      ISSUED:






                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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