STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FG 510509 RT  
                                              :  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                 NO.: CD 430027-OM
               ALBERT  GONZALEZ                    TENANT:  ALBERT  GONZALEZ

                                PETITIONER    : 


               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

               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

               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.


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 510509 RT

                                          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