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
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
DOCKET NOS:BF-110082-RT
BF-110084-RT
Various Tenants D.R.O. DOCKET NO:
ZQS000531-OM
PETITIONERS
--------------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS AND
REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL.
The above-named petitioner-tenants timely filed administrative
appeals against an order issued on May 15, 1987 by the District
Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York) concerning
the housing accommodations known as 30-11 Parsons Boulevard,
Flushing, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator
granted Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increases for the
controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises
based on the installation of new windows and
pointing/waterproofing of the premises.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an MCI
application with the Administrator in July of 1985. In response
to the application, various tenants filed answers stating, among
other things, that (I) the pointing/waterproofing was only a
repair since normal maintenance would have avoided the necessity
of substantial outlays at one time;(II) the work done was
incomplete and inferior; and (III) the costs claimed by the
landlord are unreasonable and unnecessary.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, granted
the owner's MCI application.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenants contend, in substance, that (A)
although a laborer was hired to smear some red plastic in the
cracks of the walls, pointing and waterproofing was never done;
(B) the walls in the petitioners' apartments are wet; and (C)
although recently a scaffold was raised to the roof level of the
Docket No. BF-110082-RT & BF-110084-RT - 2 -
subject building, it was never used.
In response to the tenants' appeal, the owner filed an answer,
stating in substance, that (1) the pointing work was performed
where required several years ago; (2) upon receiving a tenant's
complaint, the owner hired a company which completed the
waterproofing in July of 1987; and (3) all interior repairs were
made in the apartments and there are no complaints pending.
Subsequently, one of the petitioners advised this agency that
although the problems had diminished, they were not completely
corrected.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative
appeals should be granted in part and this proceeding remanded to
the Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion.
The record discloses that the petitioners herein raised their
contentions in the proceeding below (along with numerous other
tenants), as well as on this appeal. Furthermore, the record
does not include a contract for the pointing/waterproofing work
and the contractor's statement advising whether all exposed sides
of the building were examined prior to the work performed and
that based upon such examination the sections
waterproofed/pointed were all the areas where it was required.
Finally, no physical examination of the subject premises was
conducted in the proceeding below.
Thus, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding
should be remanded to the Administrator for further processing of
the owner's application with respect to the
pointing/waterproofing work.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Rent Stabilization Code, the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City,
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
Docket No. BF-110082RT & BF110084RT - 3 -
ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeals be, and the same hereby
are granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the
Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
order and opinion. The automatic stay of so much of the District
Rent Administrator's order as directed a retroactive increase is
hereby continued until a new order is issued upon the remand.
However, the Administrator's determination as to a prospective
rent increase is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the
Administrator issues a new order upon remand.
ISSUED:
Elliot Sander
Deputy Commissioner
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
Inter-Office Correspondence
To: District Rent Office/Processing Unit
From: Administrative Review Bureau
Subject: Remand Order
Administrative Appeal Docket NO. BF-110082-RT
& BF-110084-RT
D.R.O. Docket No. ZQS 000531-OM
Subject Premises: 30-11 Parsons Blvd.
Flushing, NY., Various Apts.
This proceeding was remanded:
{} 1) Because District Office file was not received by
us in time to decide the matter within statutory or
court imposed deadlines. The original order should be
affirmed, revoked, modified or corrected after
consideration of claims made and/or new evidence
submitted or offered on appeal. (See the "D.R.C.
Copy" of our final order, and all attachments, that
accompanies this memo.)
{} 2) For a hearing to be held, by the Hearing Bureau.
Your file has been transferred to the Hearing Bureau
and this memo and "D.R.O. Copy" of our order is sent to
you for your information and records.
[] 3) For the reasons specified below:
For the Administrator to further process the owner's
MCI application with respect to the
pointing/waterproofing work only.
|
