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.:
JOSE A. RAFAEL,
PETITIONER DF 530042-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 16, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on February 19, 1991, by
a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 6-H, 427 Ft. Washington Avenue, New York, New York,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was
entitled to a rent increase based on major capital improvements
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 June 8, 1989 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on maj r capital improve-
ments, to wit - a vestibule door, pointing and waterproofing, and
windows at a total cost of $71,966.50.
On August 22, 1989, 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 February 19, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order
here under review finding that the installations qualified as a
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 controll d and rent stabi-
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that
the windows are defective, that the front door is unlocked, and
that the roof still leaks.
In answer to the tenant's petition the owner alleges that it has
corrected the alleged deficiencies and attaches an original work
order signed by the tenant.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that this tenant did not interpose any
objection to the owner's application while this proceeding was
pending before the Rent Administrator even though he was afforded
the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section
2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, the objections he raises
now, for the first time on administrative appeal, may not be
considered herein. The Commissioner furth r notes that condi-
tions have been corrected.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA