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 130229-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 14, 1991, the above-named tenant, filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 5, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known as
Apartment 2-F, 48-14 48th Street, Woodside, 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 29, 1988 by filing
an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - windows, doors, link fence, roof, mailbox
and intercom at a total cost of $12,702.00.
On September 22, 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 of Apartment 2-F did not file an objection to the
owner's application although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On March 5, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that some 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 stabilized apartments.
The Administrator disallowed any rent increases based upon the
installation of mailboxes and the chain link fence.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges inter alia
that the prior owner had replaced the old windows with storm
windows only two months prior to the current owner's installa-
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 gen-
erally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue
Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the opera-
tion, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace
an item whose useful life has expired.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant did not interpose an
objection to the owner's application while this proceeding was
pending before Rent Administrator althou h afforded the oppor-
tunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the
Rent Stabilization Code, the objections being raised now, for the
first time on administrative appeal, may not be considered
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.
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