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 NOS.: HD130206RT
          APPEALS OF                                            HD130260RT
                                                                HD130287RT
                                                                HD130366RT
                                                                HD130401RT
          Various Tenants of 89-24 and 89-34                    HE130020RT
          164th Street, Jamaica, New York                       HE130068RT

                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                  PETITIONERS      DOCKET NO.: EJ130094OM
          -----------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative appeals against 
          an order issued on April 6, 1993 by the Rent Administrator (92-31 
          Union Hall Street, Jamaica,  New  York)  concerning  the  housing
          accommodations known as 89-24,  89-34  and  89-38  164th  Street,
          Jamaica, New York, various apartments, wherein the  Administrator
          granted major capital improvement (MCI) rent  increases  for  the
          controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises.

          The Commissioner notes that the petition filed by the tenant of 
          89-24 164th Street, apartment 5E, was  incorrectly  assigned  two
          docket numbers (HD130366RT and HD130287RT).

          The owner commenced this  proceeding  below  by  filing  its  MCI
          application in October of 1990 for the installation of compactors 
          and elevator upgrading at  89-24  and  89-34  164th  Street;  and
          pointing and waterproofing at 89-38 164th Street. In support of its 
          application,  the  owner  submitted  copies  of  the   contracts,
          contractors' certifications and cancelled checks.

          On April 6, 1993 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under 
          review,  finding  that  the  installations  qualified  as   MCIs,
          determining that the application complied with the relevant  laws
          and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted 
          by the owner, and authorizing rent increases.




          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: HD130206RT et. al.













          On appeal,  the  petitioner-tenants  contend,  in  substance,  as
          follows:

          89-24 164th Street, Apartment 2A

          The replacements were required because of management's neglect over 
          the years.

          89-24 164th Street, Apartment 5E

          The elevator and the compactor do not operate properly.

          89-24 164th Street, Apartment 5C

          The elevator service for the fifth (5) floor has been out of order 
          and the compactor has been wired shut.

          89-34 164th Street, Apartment 6G

          There is no compactor in her building as garbage is pushed down a 
          chute to the basement and then placed in bags.

          89-34 164th Street, Apartment 5B

          We have not been served with an RR-1  application  prior  to  the
          issuance of the Administrator's order.

          89-34 164th Street, Apartment 6F

          Only cosmetic work was performed in the elevator, he is not aware 
          of any other installations, and building services are  not  being
          maintained.

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

          Rent increases for major capital improvements are  authorized  by
          Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for the  rent
          controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code for the rent stabilized apartments. Under rent  control,  an
          increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970  an
          MCI required for the operation, preservation, and maintenance  of
          the structure. Under rent  stabilization,  the  improvement  must
          generally be building-wide; depreciable under the Internal Revenue 
          Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for the operation, 
          preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and replace an item 
          whose useful has expired.


          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: HD130206RT et. al.

          With regard to the contention of the tenant of 89-34 164th Street, 






          apartment 6G, that there was no compactor in  her  building,  the
          evidence of  record,  including  a  physical  inspection  of  the
          premises, indicates that the compactor was working properly.

          The record further reveals that on December 14, 1990, copies of the 
          owner's MCI application was served by the  Division  on  all  the
          tenants. Along with the application was a form to be used by  the
          tenants for their  response.  The  Commissioner  notes  that  the
          remaining petitioner-tenants did not raised any objections  while
          this proceeding was pending before the  Rent  Administrator  even
          though they were afforded the opportunity to do so.

          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  raised  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 proceeding.

          As to the tenants' contention with respect to the owner's failure 
          to provide and/or maintain 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  building-wide
          services either at the time the Administrator's order was issued or 
          thereafter. The determination herein is without prejudice to  the
          right of the tenants to file an application for a rent  reduction
          based on a diminution of services, if the facts 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 appeals be, and the same hereby 
          are, denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                             -------------------------------
                                              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