BE 230344 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BE 230344 RO
STELLA CANNELLA, DISTRICT RENT OFFICE
DOCKET NO.: KCS 000865 OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 20, 1987 above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition for
administrative review against an order issued on April 20, 1987
by the District Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 139 Wilson Avenue Brooklyn, New York,
wherein the Administrator denied the owner's application for a
rent increase based upon Major Capital Improvements (MCI's).
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The record reveals that on October 11, 1985, the owner applied
for an increase in the legal regulated rent based on expenditures
totalling $15,300 for various improvements done between
September, 1984 and September 1985 including:
a new hot water tank ($1,300);
resurfacing of exterior wall with stucco ($12,500); and
a new roof ($1,500).
The application was served on the tenants on May 1, 1986 and
three tenants responded, asserting that no work had been done on
On August 1, 1986, the owner was asked to submit proof of payment
consisting of either copies of cancelled checks, both sides, or
if cash, an affidavit.
In response, the owner submitted a copy of a "proposal" by N & S
Construction Inc. stating that work was done on the subject
premises in September, 1984 and that $18,300 was paid in cash.
The Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied the
application, finding that the improvements had not been properly
BE 230344 RO
substantiated by supporting documentation.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
the work was done and that all requested documentation was
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
In order to qualify for a rent increase based on an MCI, an owner
is required to submit proof of payment of the work done. Such
proof must consist of copies of cancelled checks or if payment
was made in cash, a contractor's affidavit or signed receipts to
establish the actual costs incurred.
The owner herein failed to comply with these requirements despite
specific requests from the Administrator. The document
submitted by the owner to establish proof of payment is neither
an affidavit nor a signed receipt. Moreover, it does not
identify the work done and states a time period other than what
the owner had indicated in the application.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator
properly denied the owner's application.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and the
Rent and Eviction Regulations of New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,