STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
LOUIS MCDUFFIE NO.: AG210203OM
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a petition for administrative review of
an order issued on May 16, 1988 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz
Plaza), concerning the housing accommodations known as various
apartments, 193 Ralph Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition for review.
The owner of the subject premises commenced this proceeding on July
17, 1986 by filing a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase
application with the Administrator based on the installation of new
windows building-wide and two steel doors.
On May 16, 1988, the Rent Administrator issued the order appealed
herein in which the owner's MCI application was denied based on a
determination that the owner had failed to submit evidence to
substantiate his MCI rent increase application despite repeated
In his petition the owner indicates, in substance, that he will
amend his MCI rent increase application as soon as he is able to
discern which, if any, of the agency requests for further
information remain unsatisfied.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that despite
several agency requests for evidence the owner failed to respond
fully to said requests. Those costs associated with the window
installation remain unsubstantiated as only one promissory note was
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: CF230117RO
submitted representing a financed amount of only $8625.00.,
unexplained discrepancies exist between the contract price
($26,125.00 or $25,000.00) and the claimed cost ($19,000.00) of the
installation. The Commissioner further notes that the record
contains copies of two distinct window contracts each from the same
company, signed by the owner, bearing the same date, but showing
different contract prices. Furthermore, an analysis of the owner's
application indicates that the schedule of Monthly Rental Income as
of January 1986 contains many incorrect entries. Accordingly, the
the Commissioner finds that the owner's application is incomplete
and that the order of the Rent Adminstrator must be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A D'AGOSTA