OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF    

                    GEORGE NODA
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:  CJ230021OM


          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 

          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 
          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 

          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 

          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 

          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, 


                                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                       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