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 DE 630025-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 19, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 17, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the building known as Apartment
2-C, 1861 Sedgewick Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent
increase based on a major capital improvement (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 May 5, 1989 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve
ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $68,505.00.
On July 5, 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 petitioner tenant had not yet taken occupancy at the time of
the filing of the owner's application.
On April 17, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installation qualified as a major
capital improvement, 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.
In her petition for administrative review, the current tenant of
Apartment 3-C requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's
order and alleges, inter alia, that the owner failed to inform
her of a pending increase on her vacancy lease when she took
In answer to the tenant's petition the owner alleges that it did
inform the new tenants and encloses a photocopy of the tenants'
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants' petition does not
challenge the sufficiency of the improvement nor its eligibility
for an increase. The gravamen of the petition is the allegation
regarding notice and collectability of the increase during the
tenants' current lease term.
The Commissioner notes that the tenants' lease rider adequately
informs them of the pending application under Docket No 630025-OM
and that the rider is signed by both tenants and dated May 4,
Accordingly the Commissioner finds the petitioner's allegation to
be without merit and determines that the rent increase based on
the installation of new windows (MCI) is warranted and collect-
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.
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