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 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: DJ230163RO
APPEAL OF
Patrick Dempsey,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: BH230253OM
------------------------------------X (EF230019RK)
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On October 23, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on September 20, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the
housing accommodations known as 387 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, New
York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was
not entitled to a rent increase based on the installation of a
major capital 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 August 6, 1987, by filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of new
windows at a total cost of $39,855.00.
On September 20, 1989, the Rent Administrator denied the owner's
application in its entirety upon the owner's failure to submit
requested information in a timely manner.
The owner simultaneously filed the petition herein and a request
for reconsideration. The Rent Administrator granted the owner's
request for reconsideration based on the fact that the second
notice dated August 8, 1989, requesting said information was
received approximately one (1) month after its issuance date
(September 7, 1989). Subsequently, the Rent Administrator issued
the reconsideration order under Docket No. EF230019RK on November
9, 1990, which reinstated the denial order here under review based
upon the contention that upon receipt of the final notice, the
owner did not inform the DHCR of non-receipt of the first notice
nor did he request an extension of time to submit the requested
information. (The owner did, in fact, mention non-receipt of the
first notice).
Adm. Rev. Docket No. DK210306RO
The Commissioner notes that receipt of the first notice is
irrelevant in the instant case as the owner provided a copy of the
letter postmarked August 31, 1989, containing the second notice in
order to show that due process had not been afforded. The order
here under review was issued thirteen (13) days after the owner's
receipt of the second notice which allowed twenty (20) days for any
response.
It is further noted that the Rent Administrator began to reprocess
the application during the reconsideration procedure including
requesting additional information without mentioning that there was
a "flaw" in the owner's appeal which disqualified him for
reconsideration.
After a 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 processing of the
application based on the evidence submitted by the owner in the
proceeding below as well as on appeal. Copies of certain checks
were submitted during the proceeding herein when said documents
should have gone directly to the Rent Administrator during the proceeding
below.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City, Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the 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 Administrator's order herein remains in effect until a new
order is issued upon remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D' AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
