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 NO. 6337
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. DD 630284-RO
                                         :  
         ARTHA MANAGEMENT CO.               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
         TIEBOUT HOLDING CORP.              DOCKET NO. CC 630163-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
       PART AND REMANDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

     On April 17, 1989, the above-named owner filed a petition for administrative 
     review of an order issued on March 15, 1989 by a Rent Administrator 
     concerning the housing accommodations known as 2454 Tiebout Avenue, Bronx, 
     New York, Various Apartments.

     Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme Court 
     pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules requesting that 
     the "deemed denial" of the administrative appeal be annulled.  This resulted 
     in a court ordered stipulation remanding the proceeding to the Division for 
     an expeditious determination of the petitioner's administrative appeal.

     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 Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied the owner's MCI 
     application as incomplete indicating that contracts were not submitted for 
     each installation.

     In its petition the owner asserts, in pertinent part, that its submission of 
     a general contractor's proposal for all of the installations made was 
     sufficient to substantiate the MCI work done.  The owner continues by 
     asserting that when it was determined that this contract evidence was 
     insufficient it should have been notified and given an opportunity to submit 
     the subcontracts which it submits for the first time with its petition.

     Several tenants submit answers to the owner's petition in which they raise 
     issues concerning the quality and extent of the MCI installations.  More 
     specifically, the tenants assert, in substance, that the windows are 
     inadequate and their seals have already begun to deteriorate, the intercom 
     system, elevator and front entrance doors are frequently inoperative and 
     that the heat and hot water are inadequate.  Four tenants assert that they 
     have already begun paying for the intercom installation and two tenants 
     assert that they believe that the proposed rent increase does not accurately 
     reflect the cost of the installations which costs they believe are 
     overinflated.








          DOCKET NUMBER: DD 630284-RO
     After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
     Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded to 
     the Rent Administrator for further processing.

     The record reveals that the owner, with his MCI application, submitted 
     copies of a contract indicating that a General Contracting Company had 
     undertaken all of the proposed MCI installations, copies of cancelled checks 
     in full payment to this contractor for the installations, requisite permits, 
     governmental signoffs, and contractor certifications.  The agency did not 
     contact the owner before the issuance of the order appealed from. 

     The record reveals that the owner was not given a full and fair opportunity 
     when this proceeding was before the Administrator below, to present the more 
     complete MCI installation information which it submits with its petition 
     herein.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this 
     proceeding should be remanded to the Rent Administrator to consider the 
     evidence offered on appeal and for such further processing as may be deemed 
     necessary including a physical inspection.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and the Rent and 
     Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

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

     ISSUED:







                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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