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.:
KARL ST. CHARLES, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER BL 430265-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 19, 1991, the above-named tenant, filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on December 24, 1990, by
a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 4-D, 703 West 184th Street, 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 December 31, 1987 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, at a total cost of $109,990.00.
On April 15, 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 December 24, 1990, 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 controll d and rent stabi-
lized apartments. The Rent Administrator disallowed $3,350.00 of
expenditures made for new entrance doors and totally disallowed
$2,380.00 spent for new mailboxes.
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges defects in
the new installations.
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 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code for rent stabilized
apartments. Under rent stabilization, the improvement must
generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal
Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the
operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and
replace an item whose useful life has expired.
The Commissioner notes that this tenant raised no objections to
the owner's application while this proceeding was pending before
the Rent Administrator although he was afforded the opportunity
to do so. Accordingly, the unsubstantiated objections he raises
now, for the first time on administrative review, 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 of decreased services if the
facts so warrant.
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