ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 510509 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 510509 RT
: RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CD 430027-OM
ALBERT GONZALEZ TENANT: ALBERT GONZALEZ
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner tenant timely refiled a petition
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 increase based on
the installation of major capital improvements.
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
improvements, 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
thereupon.
The petitioning tenant 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 his petition, the tenant stated that improvements in the
windows are defective in that the moulding comes out and does not
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 510509 RT
hold. In addition, the door creaks.
The owner did not file a response.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioning tenant did not
raise 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, but raises the
objections for the first time on administrative appeal.
The Commissioner further notes that the petitioner has not
offered any facts or explanation to establish that the 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 petitioner's allegations may
not be considered now when offered for the first time on
administrative appeal.
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 the Rent Stabilization
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,
preservation, 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 tenant has not established
that the increase should be revoked.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to
petitioner's 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 this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 510509 RT
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
