FI 110294-RT, et al.


                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:  
                                                  FI              110294-RT
             ROSE VILLAMENA, ROSE ONORATO,        FI 110298-RT
             AND DOROTHY HURLEY,                  FI 110299-RT
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     FC 110029-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            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
          thereupon.




          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
          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