FG 110365-RT, et al.
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.:
FG 110365-RT; FG 110512-RT
JOHN and YVONNE MOORE, FG 110364-RT; FG 110393-RT
ELAINE JOHN, SANDRA FORD, FG 110505-RT; FG 110177-RT
ELMARIE HOLMES, ETHEL REMBERT,
and HARRY HARRIS RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONERS DK 110209-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
The above-named tenants, filed timely petitions for administra-
tive review of an order issued on June 28, 1991 by a Rent
Administrator concerning the buildings known as 158-06/50 76th
Avenue, 158-05/49 76th Road, Flushing, 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 November 6, 1989 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - roof, new boiler and hot water heaters,
windows, breeching for new boilers, heat timers, and mailboxes at
a total cost of $345,419.18.
On March 12, 1990, 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 the opportunity to do so.
On June 28, 1991, 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 stabilized apartments.
FG 110365-RT, et al.
No rent increases were allowed for the installation of heat
timers or mailboxes.
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging defects in
the windows and roof and inadequate heat.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that these petitions should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that none of the petitioners raised any
objections to the owner's application while this proceeding was
pending before the Rent Administrator even though they were
afforded the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to
Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code the objections they
raise 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-
ants' rights to file complaints based upon a diminution of
services or inadequate heat if the facts so warrant.
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA