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.      
    

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