DOCKET NUMBER: DD 130238-RO
                                 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  SJR 5193
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: DD 130238-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: CL 130236-OM

     MELOHN PROPERTIES     PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

          ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On April  25,  1989  the  above  named  petitioner-owner/trustee  filed  a
     Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued  on  March  22,
     1989 by the District Rent Administrator, Gertz  Plaza  concerning  housing
     accommodations known as 83-57 118th  Street,  Queens,  New  York,  Various
     apartments wherein the Administrator denied the application and terminated 
     the proceeding for a major capital improvement rent increase adjustment on 
     grounds that the application was incomplete at the time  of  filing  since
     the applicant failed to indicate  on  the  Contractor/Vendor  form  (RA-79
     Supplement I) whether there existed a relationship, financial or otherwise 
     between the owner and contractors for three of six  items  listed  in  the
     application and also failed to specify the age of the heating  unit  which
     had been replaced.

     The  record  discloses  that  the  owner  submitted  in  support  of   its
     application,  filed  in  December   1988,   contractors'   certifications,
     contracts, cancelled checks and various  governmental  approved  and  sign
     offs.

     In  its  petition  for  administrative  review  the  owner  contends,   in
     substance, that it was error for the  Administrator  to  have  denied  the
     entire application predicated on six  independent  items  because  of  the
     omission of complete information as to only  three  items;  and  that  the
     Administrator's  determination  is  contrary  to  long  standing  Division
     processing procedure which  is  to  afford  an  owner  an  opportunity  to
     complete  its  application  by  furnishing  additional   information   and
     evidence.

     Various tenants answered the petition urging the denial thereof.

     After a careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner is of 
     the opinion that this petition should be remanded to the Administrator for 
     further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.

     Inherent in the Administrator's authority to pass on an application for  a
     rent increase adjustment is the authority to deny or reject an application 
     which is incomplete on its face.  The Administrator also has the authority 
     to request the submission of additional information  and  evidence  deemed
     relevant to such application.


     At the time the instant application was filed it was  the  policy  of  the
     Administrator  to  deny  an  incomplete   application.    Currently   such






          DOCKET NUMBER: DD 130238-RO
     application would be rejected without prejudice to  refiling  (as  in  the
     matter cited by  the  owner  on  appeal).   In  view  of  the  substantial
     documentation submitted by the owner and since it  is  the  Administrative
     rule to decide pending proceedings under the  regulations  and  procedures
     then  in  effect  (unless  undue  hardships  may  result  therefrom)   the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded  to
     the Rent Administrator for  such  further  processing  as  may  be  deemed
     warranted  with  full  consideration  given  to   such   allegations   and
     contentions as  may  be  raised  by  the  parties  after  service  of  the
     application on the tenants.

     As to the effective date of any rent  increase  adjustment  to  which  the
     owner may ultimately  be  found  entitled,  the  Commissioner  notes  that
     Section 2522.2 of the Rent Stabilization code provides  that  an  increase
     shall be  effective  the  first  rent  payment  date  30  days  after  the
     application is filed, unless otherwise set forth in the  order.   Inasmuch
     as the owner has failed to  offer  any  explanation  for  its  failure  to
     respond to pertinent inquiries posed in the application  both  as  to  the
     age  of  the  heating  system  or  the  relationship   question   on   the
     Contractor/Vendor form and since such information  was  not  submitted  on
     appeal,  the  effective  date  of  any  rent  increase  as  to  stabilized
     apartments shall be no earlier than July 1, 1989, the first  rent  payment
     date 60 days after filing of  this  petition  for  administrative  review,
     provided the owner submits to the administrator in a timely  fashion  such
     additional information and/or documentation as may be requested  upon  the
     remand.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provision of the Rent Stabilization Code 
     and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be and same hereby is granted to the extent of 
     remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further processing 
     in accordance with  this  order  and  opinion.   The  order  of  the  Rent
     Administrator remains in full force and effect until a new order is issued 
     upon the remand.

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                           Deputy Commissioner