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.: FE 410448-RT;
FE 410450-RT; FE 410451-RT;
VARIOUS TENANTS OF FE 410452-RT; FE 410453-RT;
35 HAMILTON PLACE, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER CD 430027-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
Various tenants of the above-named building filed timely peti-
tions for administrative review of an order issued on May 14,
1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning housing accommodations
known as 35 Hamilton Place, New York, New York wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent
increased based on the installation of major capital improve-
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 April 1, 1988 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on major capital improve-
ments, to wit - brick pointing, elevator cab, intercom, doors and
windows at a total cost of $164,150.00.
On October 13, 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 petitioning tenants did not file any objections to the
owner's application although afforded an opportunity to do so.
On May 14, 1991, the Administrator issued the order appealed
from. The Administrator found that $5,000.00 of the brick
pointing was not substantiated, the elevator cab did not qualify
as an MCI and $8,280 of the doors were not substantiated. The
remainder of the installations were found to constitute major
capital improvements. Appropriate rent increases were allowed
for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments.
In their petitions, the tenants all argued that they could not
afford the rent increase ordered by the Administrator. Petitioner
Mendez also claimed that the windows, intercom and elevator were
not working properly.
The owner did not file a response.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that these petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that none of the petitioning tenants
raised any objections to the quality or sufficiency of the
owner's installations during the more than two years that the
proceeding was pending before the Rent Administrator, and that
they raise their objections for the first time on administrative
Further, the Commissioner notes that the tenants' allegations are
unsupported by any evidence attached to their petitions and they
have not offered any facts or explanation to establish that their
allegations could not reasonably have been offered or included in
the proceeding prior to the issuance of the order under review.
Accordingly, pursuant to prior administrative decisions under the
Rent and Eviction Regulations and pursuant to Section 2529.6 of
the Rent Stabilization Code the tenants' allegations may not be
considered now when offered for the first time on administrative
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of t e Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preserva-
tion, or maintenance of the structure. 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 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 tenants have not established
that the increase should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the ten-
ants' rights as they may pertain to applications to the Division
for reductions of rent based upon diminutions of services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby