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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:EB 110317-RT
: EB 130356-RT
VARIOUS TENANTS EB 110363-RT
PETITIONERS : EB 110369-RT
------------------------------------X EB 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
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
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
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner