DOC. NO.: BI 430175-RO
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. BI 430175-RO
MST ASSOCIATES, : DISTRICT RENT ORDER
PETITIONER : DOCKET NO. LS 000482-OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 17, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on August
17, 1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,
New York concerning housing accommodations known as 262 West 24th
Street, New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the
Administrator granted in part the application and authorized a major
capital improvement rent increase for both the controlled and
stabilized apartments (25) in the subject premises.
The instant matter arises from an application filed on March 14, 1985
by a former owner of the subject premises, Kindred Associates, (by
Jerry Nigdol) predicated upon, among other items, the installation of
a new gas fired boiler/burner at a claimed cost of $25,000.00 and
adequate replumbing at a claimed cost of $37,500.00. Submitted
therewith were copies of a contractor's certification wherein the
owner stated that the principals of the plumbing and heating
contractor, Alert Gas Service, Inc., and the owner of the subject
premises were one and the same. The contract and contractor's
certification are signed by Max Nigdol on behalf of Alert Gas Service
as is a check issued by Kindred Associates made payable to Alert Gas
Service for $50,276.78, which check is signed by Max Nigdol and
endorsed by the same individual.
On January 23, 1986 the current owner of the subject premises (the
petitioner herein) certified to the service of the application on the
tenants. Various tenants responded to the application urging the
denial thereof contending, among other things, that the claimed costs
are excessive.
DOC. NO.: BI 430175-RO
By notice dated March 24, 1987 the owner herein was advised that the
check payable to Alert Gas Service was inadequate to substantiate the
cost of the plumbing and heating installations due to the relationship
between the former owner and the contractor who performed the work.
The petitioner herein was requested to submit, among other things, a
copy of the J-51 certification for the work in question.
By letters dated April 28, and May 18, 1987 the current owner (who
purchased the property a month after the application was filed)
requested an extension until June 24, 1987 to submit the requested
documentation. By letter dated June 24, 1987 the owner, via its
attorney, responded to various inquiries but failed to submit the
requested J-51 certificate of eligibility. No further response having
been received from the owner and since a mandamus proceeding was
pending, the Administrator, on August 17, 1987, issued the order
appealed herein granting in part the application but denying such
portion thereof as pertained to the plumbing and heating installations
on grounds that the claimed cost ($62,500.00) was not adequately
substantiated.
In this petition for administrative review the owner contends, in
substance, that as a new owner it should have been afforded sufficient
time to obtain the requested documentation from the former owner.
Thereafter, the owner, via its attorney, stated that it had obtained
written confirmation from the contractor (Albert Gas Service) to the
effect that it had been paid in full for the work in question. Said
letter was not submitted by the owner.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Where, as in the instant case, the contractor who did the work has a
substantial ownership interest in the subject property, the courts
have recognized the obligation of the Administrator to most carefully
scrutinize the alleged costs. (That is not to say that careful review
is not required in a normal case). The petitioner herein, having
adopted the application of its predecessor in interest, stands in the
shoes of the prior owner with respect to the degree of proof required
of it. In view of the identity of interest between the former owner
and the contractor who performed the work and the failure of the owner
herein to produce adequate further substantiation of the cost of the
plumbing and heating installation in the proceeding below (nor has it
done so on appeal), although afforded full opportunity to do so, the
Commissioner is of the opinion and finds that such portion of the
application as pertains thereto was properly denied by the
Administrator.
DOC. NO.: BI 430175-RO
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, 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
|
