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.: BA 110308-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: QS 000920-OM
       LIGIA M. WELCH
                           PETITIONER    :  PRIOR OWNER: CDI DEVELOPMENT, INC.
     ------------------------------------X                             
                                            TENANTS: VARIOUS

           ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT ADMINISTRATOR


     On January 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
     Administrative Review against an order issued on January 8, 1987,  by  the
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning 
     housing accommodations known as  various  apartments,  216-11  and  216-15
     Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, New York, wherein the Rent  Administrator
     denied the application for a rent increase on a Major Capital  Improvement
     (MCI) without prejudice to the right of the  new  owner  to  file  a  rent
     application that is properly substantiated.

     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 the administrative appeal.

     The prior owner commenced this proceeding on October 1, 1985 by filing  an
     application for an MCI increase.  The prior owner did not identify  itself
     as either the managing current agent or the prior owner.

     No  objections  were  submitted  by  any  tenants  in  response   to   the
     application.

     In Order Number ZQS 000920-OM, the Rent Administrator determined that  the
     prior owner had sold the building to the petitioner  on  August  15,  1985
     and that the October 1, 1985 application by the prior owner was  therefore
     defective.  The Administrator also stated  that  only  four  tenants  were
     affected by the application because the subject building  was  part  of  a
     greater complex which was subdivided into smaller units.

     The  subject  improvements  were   further   stated   to   be   improperly
     substantiated  by  supporting  documentation.    However,   the   specific
     deficiencies were not stated in the order.

     The Administrator stated:

          "Accordingly, the application is denied without prejudice to  the
          present  owner  filing  a  new  application  that   is   properly
          substantiated.  Both the owner and the tenants are  advised  that








          DOCKET NUMBER: BA 110308-RO
          regardless of the present number of units, apartments  which  are
          subject to the Rent Stabilization Law remain subject to this  law
          unless and until the owner makes application to this  agency  for
          a  determination  declaring  them  exempt  and   an   Order   and
          Determination granting such an application is issued."

     Division records indicate that the new  owner  did  not  file  a  new  MCI
     application.

     In this petition, the new owner contends  that  the  Rent  Administrator's
     Order is incorrect and should be modified because the prior owner  was  in
     fact the managing agent at the time the application was filed, so that the 
     filing was proper.

     In addition, the petitioner documents that she informed the tenants of the 
     subject premises  on  August  16,  1985,  the  day  after  purchasing  the
     premises, that she was the new owner.  In addition, the  petitioner  notes
     that she filed a report of change in identity of owner (Form RA  44)  with
     the Division, thus proving that there had been no  intent  to  mislead  or
     defraud.

     No tenant answered this petition, although given the opportunity to do so.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded 
     to the Rent Administrator.  

     The petitioner is correct that a managing  agent  can  apply  for  an  MCI
     increase on behalf of an owner.   Furthermore, it is well-settled  that  a
     current owner can apply for an MCI increase  for  work  done  by  a  prior
     owner.  Accordingly, the Commissioner hereby finds that the  Administrator
     should have substituted the new owner for the old owner on the application 
     and treated the so-reformed application as filed as of  the  date  of  the
     actual application.  On remand, the application should be processed on its 
     merits as if filed by the new owner, petitioner herein.

     The substantive allegations of the  owner  regarding  the  sufficiency  of
     proof are to be resolved on  remand.   Parenthetically,  the  Commissioner
     notes that the checks submitted by the owner do not add up to the  alleged
     total  expenditures  for  certain  improvements  and  for  at  least   one
     improvement that is no proof as to how much  of  the  total  cost  of  the
     improvement for the complex should be allocated to the building  which  is
     the subject of this appeal.  In short, the record as it stands is  clearly
     deficient.

     Finally, the Commissioner notes that for an improvement to qualify for  an
     MCI increase it must be "for the operating, preservation, and  maintenance
     of the structure."

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law 
     and Code, it is












          DOCKET NUMBER: BA 110308-RO
     ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review  be,  and  the  same
     hereby is, granted, to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent 
     Administrator for further processing in accordance  with  this  order  and
     opinion.

     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