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.: FE 610137-RT
DRO DOCKET NO.: BI 630203-OM
MICHAEL C. DUNFORD
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 7, 1991 the above named petitioner tenant filed a petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator issued
April 3, 1991. The order concerned housing accommodations known as
Apartment 3D, located at 144 East 208th Street, Bronx, New York. The
Administrator granted, in part, the owner's application for a rent
increase based on the installation of major capital improvements (MCI).
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered that
portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.
On September 30, 1987 the owner commenced this proceeding by filing an
application for rent increase based on the installation of major capital
improvements, to wit-new windows, boiler/burner and heat timer at a total
cost of $63,010.00. The tenants were served with a copy of the
application and afforded an opportunity to reply.
Petitioner did, in fact, file an answer to the application which he raised
the following objections:
1) the installation of the boiler/burner violated the "two year
2) the timer should be disallowed as an improper subject for an
The tenant did not raise any objections to the windows.
The Administrator rejected petitioner's first argument since the boiler
installation was completed in November 1985 and the application was filed
on September 30, 1987, and, regarding the timer, ruled that the $2750 cost
of installation should be disallowed. The remainder of the application
was granted and appropriate rent increases were granted for the
installation of the windows and boiler/burner.
On appeal, petitioner takes issue with the window installation. He argues
that the windows in his apartment were not replaced as part of the
DOCKET NUMBER: FE 610137-RT
Petitioner claims that a fire destroyed 8 of the 10 windows in his
apartment and petitioner was forced to take the owner to housing court in
order to get replacements. Petitioner requests the cost of the 8 windows
previously installed be denied. The owner did not file a response.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the record the Commissioner
is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code the scope of
review in administrative appeals is limited to facts or evidence that was
before the Rent Administrator unless it is established that certain facts
or evidence could not reasonably have been offered or included in the
proceeding prior to the issuance of the order being appealed.
In this proceeding the tenant raised no objection to the windows in his
answer to the application. His failure to do so without explanation bars
him from presenting these allegations to the Commissioner at this time.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the tenants' rights
as they may pertain to applications to the Division for reductions of rent
based upon diminutions of services.
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.