FG 510503-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.:   
                                                  FG              510503-RT
                    JACKLYN ROUSE,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      CF 530034-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On July 24, 1991, the above-named tenant refiled a  petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on June 6,  1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known  as
          Apartment 64, 517 West 169th Street, New York, 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 June 6, 1988 by filing  an
          application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve 
          ment, to wit - apartment windows at a total cost of $26,996.40.

          On December 8,  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 
          thereupon.

          The tenant did not file an objection to the  owner's  application
          although afforded the opportunity to do so.

          On June 5, 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 controll d  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  
                         
          In her petition for administrative review,  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges  that  the
          windows need repair and furth r  alleges  various  service  defi-
          ciencies in her apartment.







          FG 510503-RT

          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  any
          objections to the owner's application when  this  proceeding  was
          pending before the Rent Administrator when any problems with  the
          new windows could have been investigated, inspections carried out 
          and defects corrected, even though she was  afforded  the  oppor-
          tunity to do so.  Accordingly, the objections she raises now, for 
          the first time on administrative appeal,  may  not,  pursuant  to
          Section 2529.6, be considered herein.

          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.

          This order and opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ant's right to file a complaint based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.











          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:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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