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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: GD220174RT
APPEAL OF
GEORGE NODA
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: CJ230021OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 20, 1992 the above-named tenant filed a Petition for
Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on April 3, 1992, by
a Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 5205 Fifth Avenue, Apartment 6, Brooklyn,
NY, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the landlord was
entitled to a rent increase based on various major capital
improvements.
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 this administrative appeal.
The landlord commenced this proceeding on October 7, 1988 by
initially filing a major capital improvement rent increase
application predicated on the installation of the following items:
ITEMS CLAIMED COST
1. Boiler/Burner $15,700.00
2. Steam Return Lines $ 4,750.00
3. Concrete Entrance Doors $ 2,400.00
4. Security Gates $ 4,900.00
5. New Roof $14,000.00
6. Pointing and Waterproofing $ 4,200.00
7. Doors $ 7,800.00
8. Apartment Windows $13,650.00
9. Intercom/Wiring/Light $30,200.00
TOTAL CLAIMED COST $97,600.00
In support of his application, the landlord submitted copies of
contracts and cancelled checks. Two tenants, including the
petitioner-tenant, submitted answers objecting to the rent
increase. The tenant of Apartment 6, the petitioner-tenant herein,
contended, in substance, that the wiring was only partially done,
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GD220174.RT
the windows leaked, the apartment entrance door was out of
alignment, the door knob was crushed and that the pointing and
waterproofing was only cosmetically done. The tenant of Apartment
10 alleged, in substance, that there were holes in the walls,
around the fuse box, new door and gas pipes, and that water was
leaking, from the bathroom of the apartment above, causing the
walls to crack and large holes to appear in the ceiling in the
kitchen.
The landlord was notified of the allegations and on September 31,
1991 advised that the repairs had been effectuated. Subsequent
inquiries mailed to the two complaining tenants on November 14,
1991 elicited one response from the tenant of Apartment 10
indicating that the problem still existed.Inspections conducted on
March 18, 1992 and March 20, 1992 revealed that the complaint was
valid. The petitioner-tenant did not submit any answer to the
inquiry.
On April 3, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the installations of the boiler/burner, new
roof, pointing and water proofing, apartment doors, apartment
windows and intercom qualified as major capital improvements,
determining that the application as it relates to such items
complied with the relevant laws and regulations based upon the
supporting documentation submitted by the landlord and allowing
rent increases for both rent controlled and rent stabilized
apartments based upon a net approved cost of $49,649.23. The Rent
Administrator disallowed a rent increase for the installation of
steam return lines and security gates. However, the landlord was
barred from collecting an increase for the apartment door and
rewiring from the tenant of apartment 10 until all repairs had been
completed. The said tenant, however, will have to pay an increase
for the other installations for which increases were granted.
In his petition, the tenant contends, in substance, that water
leaks from apartment 10 above onto the ceiling in his bathroom. He
further contends that at the time of filing the petition, the back
door buzzer had stopped working, that a wall outlet was defective
and that he had never received any inquiry, allegedly mailed on
November 14,1991 from the Rent Administrator.
In response to the tenant's petition, the landlord submitted an
answer, stating in substance, that all complaints made by the
tenant have been corrected and that the tenant does not indicate
any specific error in law or fact which should result in a reversal
of the Rent Administrator's order.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
denied.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GD220174.RT
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent controlled
apartments. Under rent control, an increase is warranted where
there has been since July 1, 1970, a major capital improvement
required for the operation, preservation, or maintenance of the
structure.
The scope of administrative review is limited to such facts or
evidence as was before the Administrator as raised in the petition
unless the petitioner can establish that such issues could not
reasonably have been offered or raised in the proceeding prior to
the issuance of the Administrator's determination.
There is no indication that the tenant could not have raised the
issues as to the water leaking from the apartment above, the
malfunctioning of the back door buzzer and the defective wall
outlet before the Administrator in the proceeding below nor has the
petitioner submitted any explanation for his failure to do so.
Accordingly, the issues sought to be raised by the petition are not
within the scope of the Commissioner's review of the proceeding and
may not be considered on the merits.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioner did not reiterate, on
PAR his initial objections, namely leaking windows, crushed
doorknob and improper alignment of entrance door; and that the said
petitioner does not allege any errors upon which the Rent
Administrator's order was based.
With regard to the tenant's claim that he did not receive the
Division's inquiry of November 14, 1991 the Commissioner notes that
the notice mailed to another tenant, at the same time as the notice
mailed to the petitioner-tenant, was received by the other tenant;
and that there is no return mail from the U.S Postal Service, on
file, which would indicate that the tenant was not served with a
copy of the inquiry.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that there
were no pertinent complaints raised on appeal which would merit any
modification of the Rent Administrator's order.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to
file a service complaint with this Division based on a reduction of
services, if the facts so warrant. As stated in the
Administrator's order, the increase stated therein is not
collectible from any apartment during the period in which a rent
reduction order is in effect.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GD220174.RT
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
-------------------------
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
