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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER CC 230090-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 21, 1991 the above-named tenant, filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 14, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as
Apartment 5-I, 28 Marine Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the
Rent Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a
rent increase based on major capital improvements (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 the petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 14, 1988 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - a new roof and a fuel storage tank at a
total cost of $117,690.00.
On August 5, 1988, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) served each tenant with a copy of the application and
afforded the tenants the opportunity to review it and comment
The tenant did not file an objection to the owner's application
although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On March 14, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installations qualified as major
capital improvements, 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-
The Rent Administrator disallowed the $465.00 architect's fee
claimed by the owner.
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that there
exist leaks in his apartment.
In answer to the tenant's petition the owner alleges that the
leak in the tenant's apartment was unrelated to the ro f instal-
lation but was caused by a need for pointing which has since been
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments. Under rent control, an increase is
warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a major capital
improvement required for the operation, preservation, or mainten
ance of the structure.
The Commissioner notes that this tenant did not raise a y objec-
tion to the owner's application when this proceeding was pending
before the Rent Administrator when leak allegations could have
been investigated, inspections carried out, and defects cured
prior to the granting of any rent increases. Accordingly the
Commissioner finds, based on prior administrative determinations
under the Rent and Eviction Regulations, that the allegations
made now for the first time on administrative appeal may not be
The record in the instant case indicates that the owner correctly
complied with the application procedures for a major capital
improvement and the Rent Administrator properly computed the
appropriate rent increases. The tenant has not established that
the increase should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the ten-
ant's right to file a complaint based on a diminution of
services if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent & Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby