OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

                    Carlos Ramirez,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: BCS000383OM


          On July 27, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued 
          June 30, 1987 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 60 East 196th Street, Bronx, New 
          York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the 
          owner's application for a major capital improvement rent increase 
          upon finding that the owner failed to submit information necessary 
          to process the application.

          On September 23, 1987, the Commissioner issued an Order and Opinion 
          rejecting the petition due to the petitioner's failure to submit a 
          list of the tenants affected by the determination. Said order 
          afforded the petitioner fifteen (15) days in which to submit a 
          procedurally correct petition.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner instituted an Article 78 
          proceeding in the Supreme Court, alleging that he could not submit 
          the tenants' names, since the Administrator's order described the 
          tenants as "various".

          On January 15, 1988, a court order was signed remitting the 
          proceeding to the Division for further processing.

          Thereafter, in a letter dated March 10, 1988, the owner was 
          afforded fifteen (15) days to submit the required list of tenants. 
          Not having received the required list, on May 17, 1988, the 
          Commissioner issued an order dismissing the petition.

          Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition, the owner submitted 
          proof of service showing that he had submitted a list of tenants to 
          the DHCR within the required time period, on March 17, 1988.

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BG630262RO

          Based upon the foregoing, the Commissioner revoked the Dismissal 
          Order on May 20, 1988 in a Order and Opinion Reopening 
          Administrative Review Proceeding for Further Consideration  and set 
          aside the Petition for further determination at administrative 

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Administrator for further processing.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on November 18, 1985 by 
          initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the 
          installation of the following items at a total claimed cost 
          $271,435.00: "equipment"; a boiler/burner; concrete flatwork; doors 
          - main entrance and  lobby; hollow metal apartment doors; sealing 
          of dumbwaiters; masonry work; mailboxes; parapet; a roof surface; 
          pointing; smoke detectors; steel lentils; waterproofing-stucco; 
          aluminum windows; a fence and gates, and plastering.

          Three tenants objected to the application, alleging in substance, 
          that the roof was done in 1984 not 1985; that the boiler was 
          installed in 1984 not 1985; that the prior landlord installed the 
          boiler; that the front door in lobby has no lock; and that the main 
          entrance doors are not locked. One tenant stated that the price of 
          the boiler is higher than the price quoted by the prior landlord, 
          that the hollow metal door replaced a wooden door to his apartment 
          and the new mailbox in lobby replaced mail delivery to his 

          The order of the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application 
          upon finding that the owner failed to submitt information requested  
          on December 23, 1985 and April 10, 1987.

          In his petition the owners contends, in substance that he never 
          received "Notice and Transmittal of Tenant's Complaint".

          The evidence of the record in the instant case indicates that both 
          of the aforementioned Requests for Additional Information were sent 
          to the owner's address setforth on the application; and that the 
          second notice was not sent to the newly registered address of the 
          owner's management agent.

          In view of the foregoing the Commissioner deems it appropriate to 
          remand this proceeding to the Administrator for further processing 
          of the application on its merits, and upon notice to all current 
          tenants of the subject premises who should be afforded the 
          opportunity to respond thereto.

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. BG630262RO

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulation, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to 
          the extent of remanding this proceeding to the District Rent 
          Administrator for further processing in accordance with this order 
          and opinion.


                                                     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