FJ 120545-RT;  FG 110374-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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  FJ 120545-RT             
                 STANLEY PICHTEL and     FG 110374-RT
                 MILAN BACIC,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     CD 130006-OM        
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          The above-named tenants timely filed and  refiled  petitions  for
          administrative review of an order issued on July 5,  1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          Apartments 14, and 12A, 31-12 42nd  Street,  Astoria,  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 April 1, 1988,  by  filing
          an application for a rent increase  based  on   a  major  capital
          improvement, to wit - pointing and waterproofing at a total  cost
          of $11,300.00.




          On November 11, 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 tenant of Apartment 14 did  not  file  an  objection  to  the
          owner's application although afforded the opportunity to  do  so.
          The tenant of Apartment 12A alleged  a  leak  due  to  inadequate
          pointing and waterproofing.  His apartment was inspected  on  May







          FJ 120545-RT;  FG 110374-RT
          14, 1991.  The DHCR inspector  found  conditions  not  to  be  as
          alleged by the tenant.

          On July 5, 1991, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here
          under review finding that the installations  qualified  as  major
          capital improvements, 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 controlled  and  rent  stabilized  apart-
          ments.  

          In his petition for administrative review the tenant of Apartment 
          14 requests reversal of the Rent Administrator's  order  alleging
          leaks in his apartment.  The tenant of Apartment  12-A  also  re-
          quests the order's reversal alleging various service deficiencies 
          in his apartment.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that these petitions should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that these two tenants did not  raise  any
          of the issues alleged in their petitions  while  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  and  pursuant  to
          prior  administrative  decisions  under  the  Rent  and  Eviction
          Regulations, the allegations they make now, for the first time on 
          administrative appeal, may not be considered herein.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  ten-
          ants' rights to file complaints based on a diminution of services 
          if the facts so warrant.









          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 
          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:



                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner








          FJ 120545-RT;  FG 110374-RT

                                          
    

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