FE 510266-RT


                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FE              510266-RT
                                                    
                   JOHN CHEVALLIER,               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      DF 530042-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On May 15, 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 3-B, 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
          (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 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
          thereupon.

          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-
          lized apartments.  
                         
          In his petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests







          FE 510266-RT
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges that 
          services are deficient in the building, that he  is  being  over-
          charged, that he did not request  new  windows,  and  questioning
          the "dollar amounts furnished by the landlord."

          In answer to the tenant's petition the owner alleges that it  has
          complied  with  all  requirements  to  be  eligible  for  an  MCI
          increase.

          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.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudi e  to  the  ten-
          ant's rights as they pertain to overcharge or service  complaints
          which may be pending before this Division.


          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
          is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner


                                          
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name