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 EB 610011-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 17, 1991, the above-named tenant, refiled a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on April 8, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 56, 1245 Grandview Place, Bronx, 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 February 5, 1990 by
filing an application for a rent increase based on major capital
improvements, to wit - pointing/waterproofing and replacement
windows at a total cost of $81,680.00.
On May 1, 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 tenant did not file an objection to the owner's application
although afforded the opportunity to do so.
On April 8, 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-
In his petition for administrative review, the tenant requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that the
improvements were not done or were done improperly, that he was
notified only ten (10) days ago of the increase, and that the
windows were installed in 1988 by a previous owner.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that this tenant did not raise a y objec-
tions to the owner's application while this proceeding was
pending before the Rent Administrator even though he was afforded
the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6
of the Rent Stabilization Code, the objections he raises now, for
the first time on administrative appeal, may not be considered
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the ten-
ant's right to file a complaint based on a diminution of service
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA