FI 110294-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.:
ROSE VILLAMENA, ROSE ONORATO, FI 110298-RT
AND DOROTHY HURLEY, FI 110299-RT
PETITIONERS FC 110029-OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve
common questions of law and fact.
On September 11, 1991, the above-named tenants, filed petitions
for administrative review of an order issued on August 22, 1991,
by a Rent Administrator concerning the building known as 32-45
69th Street, Woodside, 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 March 1, 1991 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a major capital improve
ment, to wit - new windows at a total cost of $59,680.00.
On March 15, 1991, 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 August 21, 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 stabilized apartments.
FI 110294-RT, et al.
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and allege that the
old windows were in poor condition, many had fallen out, and that
the new windows were a necessity not an improvement.
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 Stabilizati n Code for rent stabi-
lized apartments. 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 Commissioner notes that none of the petitioners interposed
any objections to the owner's application when 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. The Commissioner further notes that
the record indicates that the old windows, which were replaced
had exceeded their useful lives.
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 tenants have not established
that the increase should be revoked.
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