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
|