DOC. NO.: BC 110090-RT
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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BC 110090-RT
LINDA KOLACHNY, : DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER : DOCKET NO. QS 000409-OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 16, 1987, the above-named tenant filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on February 10, 1987 by a
District Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations
known as 136-30 Sanford Avenue, Flushing, New York (Apt. 5J), wherein
the Administrator ruled that the owner was entitled to a rent increase
based upon the installation of a major capital improvement.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition for review.
The owner commenced this proceeding on January 17, 1985 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a major capital improvement
(M.C.I.) at a total cost of $167,750.00.
None of the subject tenants responded to the owner's application.
On February 10, 1987, the District Rent Administrator issued the order
here under review, finding that the installation qualified as a major
capital improvement, determining that the application complied with
the relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting
documentation submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate rent
increase.
In her petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that she
was never notified nor afforded an opportunity to answer the owner's
application.
DOC. NO.: BC 110090-RT
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
this petition for administrative review should be denied.
The record reveals that by certification dated May 15, 1985 the owner
certified that on that date he had completed service on all of those
tenants whose interests could be affected by the D.H.C.R.
determination by mailing or delivering to each of them a copy of the
application.
The owner also certified that he placed a copy of the application in
the superintendent's apartment for the tenants' review. The
Commissioner further notes that, whereas several other tenants filed
petitions for administrative review (denied by the Commissioner on
other grounds on September 7, 1988, under Administrative Review Docket
Nos. BE 130161-162RT, BE 130164-168RT and BE 130170-171RT), none of
those tenants asserted that they had not been notified or not afforded
an opportunity to answer the owner's application. Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds that the subject tenant was properly notified and
afforded an opportunity to answer the owner's application.
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 order of the Rent Administrator be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
