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.: BI130148RT
:
STEPHEN PENN RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: AD110121OM
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 8, 1987, the above named petitioner-tenant timely
filed a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order
issued on August 12, 1987, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 34-44 77th Street,
Jackson Heights, New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent
Administrator determined that the owner was entitled to a rent
increase based on the installation of a major captial improvement
(MCI).
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 this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on April 17, 1986, by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of an intercom at a total cost of $6,300.00.
On August 12, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installation qualified as an MCI,
determining that the application complied with the relevant laws
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted
by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
In this petition, the tenant (apartment 4G) iterates the same
objections made during the proceeding before the Administrator
contending, in substance, that no new intercom unit was installed
in his apartment; that the old intercom unit worked satisfactorily;
and that a replacement unit was not necessary.
In response to the tenant's petition, the owner contends, in
substance, that a new intercom had been installed in the subject
apartment. In support of this contention, the owner submits a
statement dated September 16, 1987 signed by the tenant and
superintendent indicating that the superintendent had installed an
intercom in the subject apartment.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that this petition should be granted.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI130148RT
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner
hired Frank Brandt Bell and Intercom Corp. to install an intercom
system at the subject building at a cost of $6,300.00. Pursuant to
the contract submitted by the owner, said work included mounting
new intercom boxes in all of the apartments.
However, the evidence submitted by the owner on appeal indicates
that the superintendent, rather than the contractor, installed the
intercom in the subject apartment contrary to the terms of the
contract submitted to and approved by the Administrator.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the subject apartment (4G)
should be permanently excluded from the MCI rent increase for the
intercom isntallation. The owner is hereby directed to refund to
the tenant all excess rent collected as a result of this order
within thirty days from the date of issuance hereof.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified in accordance with this order and opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
