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.: DB630085RO
APPEAL OF
ANTHONY TUFFY
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: CI630019OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On February 17, 1989, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued
on February 1, 1989, by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 15-19 West Mosholu Parkway Bronx, New York,
wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application for
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 September 2, 1988, by filing
an application for a rent increase based on the installation of new
prime windows at a total cost of $52,343.00.
One tenant objected to the owner's application, alleging that
building services were not being maintained properly; and that the
increase for the windows should have already been included in the
rent as the installation was completed prior to occupancy.
On February 1, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review denying the application based upon a finding that the
owner did not apply for an increase within the two year time
period following completion of the installation (January 1986).
In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that the DHCR
does not have the legal authority to restrict applications for rent
increases to the two year time period following completion of the
installation.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. DB630085RO
In response to the owner's petition, the same tenant iterates her
objections submitted in the proceeding below.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Administrator for such further processing as is
deemed necessary in accordance with this order and opinion.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the owner
applied for an MCI rent increase approximately 2 years and 8 months
following the completion of the installation.
Section 2522.4 (a)(8) of the Rent Stabilization Code precludes a
rent increase for a major capital improvement when the application
is filed more than two years after the completion of the
installation. The effective date of this restriction was extended
to August 1, 1987, pursuant to advisory opinions 87-1 and 87-3.
Thus, with respect to rent stabilized apartments, the owner's
application could not receive consideration. However, said
limitation does not apply to rent controlled apartments.
Therefore, the Rent Administrator erred by denying the entire
application without computing a rent increase for rent controlled
apartments.
The Commissioner notes that the owner has submitted the necessary
documentation to support his application for a rent increase
including information regarding the Article 8A loan from HPD used
to effectuate the MCI.
Accordingly, this proceeding is being remanded to the Administrator
for such further processing as is deemed necessary to consider the
application on its merits and calculate a rent increase for the
rent controlled apartments in the building.
Any increase computed shall become effective on the date of
issuance of the Administrator's order appealed herein (February 1,
1989) with arrears collectible in 12 equal monthly installments
beginning the first rent payment date following the issuance of a
new order upon remand.
With respect to the objections raised by the tenant, the
Commissioner notes that the tenant is not aggrieved by the
Administrator's order as rent stabilized apartments are exempted
from any increase resulting from the installation herein; and that
individual or building-wide apartment service complaints may be
filed with DHCR, if the facts so warrant, which may result in
reductions from the current rents.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET.: DB630085RO
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to
the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Administrator for
such further processing as deemed necessary in accordance with this
order and opinion. The order and determination of the Rent
Administrator remains in full force and effect until a new order is
issued on remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
