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.:FB 220098-RT
                                          :              FB 210163-RT
                                                         FB 210268-RT
        VARIOUS TENANTS,                                 FB 210196-RT
                            PETITIONER    :              FB 210321-RT
      ------------------------------------X              FB 210427-RT

                                             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: ZBI 230247-OM


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


      The petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative appeals against an order 
      issued on January 25, 1991 by the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall 
      Street, Jamaica, New York) concerning the housing accommodations known as 
      940 Prospect Place, Brooklyn, New York, Various Apartments, wherein the 
      Administrator granted major capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for 
      the controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises based on 
      the installation of boiler and burner which services the subject premises 
      and an adjoining building.

      The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its MCI application in 
      September of 1987.  In support of its application, the owner submitted 
      copies of contracts, invoices, government approvals, contractor's statement 
      and cancelled checks.

      The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, contains the 
      notation that no response was received to the initial service of the 
      application and that subsequent inquiry mailed on August 7, 1990 to various 
      tenants also brought no response. 

      On appeal, the petitioner-tenants states, in substance, that: A) the boiler 
      breaks down regularly; B) there is a lack of heat and hot water; C) there 
      is only one boiler between the two buildings; and D) the owner is not 
      maintaining services and various defects exist throughtout the building.

      After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
      Commissioner is of the opinion that these administrative appeals should be 
      denied.

      The Commissioner notes that the record of this proceeding reveals that the 
      petitioner-tenants failed to raise before the Rent Administrator the issues 
      which they seek to raise for the first time in the context of this 
      administrative appeal proceeding.










          DOCKET NUMBER: FB 220098-RT; et al.
      Fundamental principles of the administrative appeal process and Section 
      2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code prohibit a party from raising issues 
      on appeal which were not raise below as the petitioner-tenants could have 
      raised the very issues before the Rent Administrator which they seek to 
      raise for the first time on appeal.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is 
      constrained to foreclose consideration of these issues in this appeal 
      proceeding.

      The Commissioner further notes that the boiler and burner serves 930 and 
      940 Prospect Place.  The entire cost of $32,000.00 was split between both 
      buildings, as per docket No. BI 230246-OM (930 Prospect Place) and docket 
      No. BI 230247-OM (940 Prospect Place).  Therefore the Rent Administrator 
      properly allocated the cost of $16,000.00 per building.

      As to the tenants' contention with respect to the maintenance of services, 
      a review of Division records discloses that there were no orders 
      outstanding against the subject premises based on the owner's failure to 
      maintain services of a building-wide nature nor were there any heat and hot 
      water complaints failed with the Division at the time the order of the 
      Administrator was issued.  The determination herein is without prejudice to 
      the right of the tenants to file a service complaint with the Division of 
      Housing and Community Renewal, if the facts now so warrant.

      On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that the 
      Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.

      THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
      Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the City 
      of New York, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

      ORDERED, that these administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is 
      denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is 
      affirmed.

      ISSUED:







                                                                    
                                           JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                       Acting 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