Adm. Review Docket No.: EC 130311-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  S.J.R. NO. 5483
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EC 130311-RO 
                                            :  
             PAMENAR REALTY,                   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: BG 130688-OM 
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
               ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION TO ADMINISTRATOR

        On March 23, 1990, the above-referenced owner filed a  petition  for
        administrative review ("PAR") of an order issued on March  15,  1990
        by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New
        York, concerning the housing  accommodation  known  as  145-05  21st
        Avenue, Whitestone, New York, in which order the  Administrator  had
        denied the owner's  application  for  a  rental  increase  based  on
        completion of a major capital improvement ("MCI").  

        The owner later filed a petition  under  Article  78  of  the  Civil
        Practice Law and Rules, in which it requested the Supreme  Court  to
        direct the above-referenced Division (the "DHCR")  expeditiously  to
        issue a determination of the owner's administrative appeal.

        On May 7, 1991, an order was signed  by  Justice  H.  A.  Posner  so
        directing the Division. 

        This proceeding was commenced on July 29, 1987, when the owner filed 
        an Application for Rent Increase Based on  Changes  in  Services  or
        Facilities,  Substantial  Rehabilitation,  Capital  Improvements  or
        Other Improvements, for installation of new  windows.   On  December
        29, 1989, the Administrator requested that the owner  submit,  inter
        alia: registration statements  for  the  years  1984  to  1987;  and
        "contract and  checks".   On  January  8,  1990,  the  Administrator
        supplemented that request, asking for, inter alia, the  registration
        statements   from   1984   through    1988    (including    building
        registrations), and directing the owner to re-serve the tenants, "as 
        to the cost of windows installed," with copies of form RA-79.

        On January 23, 1990, the owner submitted copies  of:  the  requested
        registration statements for 1985 through 1989; page 1 of a  contract
        for installation of windows at the  subject  premises,  between  the
        owner and Thermal Profiles, Inc.; and 33 checks drawn by  the  owner
        to the order of Thermal Profiles,  with  the  reverse  sides  of  33
        checks, on 25 of  which  the  endorsement  of  Thermal  Profiles  is
        discernible.









        Adm. Review Docket No.: EC 130311-RO

        The aforementioned order, here appealed, denied the requested rental 
        increase for the reason that  the  owner  had  submitted  incomplete
        information and had failed to comply with follow-up requests.

        The present petition states that all the requested  information  was
        sent to the Administrator.  Attached to it are copies of:  an  RA-79
        form in which the cost of the subject improvement is  set  forth;  a
        Postal-Service certificate indicating that the owner mailed items to 
        the subject tenants on January 18, 1990; both pages of the contract, 
        page 1 of which was submitted on January 23, 1990; 1984 registration 
        statements for the subject building and apartments; and two  letters
        to the DHCR dated January 10, 1990,  which  refer  to  enclosure  of
        rent-registration copies for 1984 through 1989, of a completed RA-79 
        and of proof of mailing same to the tenants, and  which  state  that
        the tenants have in fact been re-served.

        The tenants have not responded to the PAR, and their answers to  the
        original application did not pertain to the issues now raised by the 
        Administrator's order and the instant petition.

        After careful consideration of the PAR, the record herein and  other
        DHCR records, the Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  matter
        should be remanded to the Administrator for continued processing  of
        the owner's application.

        Contracts and Checks.  While the partial contract submitted  to  the
        Administrator contained the parties' names and the essential  terms,
        it did not include the signature page.   Along  with  its  petition,
        however, the owner has submitted a complete copy  of  the  contract,
        which is identical with the window-installation contract  pertaining
        to the owner's applications  as  to  other  buildings  in  the  same
        complex.

        Copies of checks, to the  order  of  the  vendor  mentioned  in  the
        contract, were provided, as related above, to the Administrator.

        In view of these facts the Commissioner will not  deny  this  rental
        increase based on any prima-facie lack  f  contractual  or  payment-
        related substantiation.  (Whether the checks substantiate the amount 
        claimed is a matter for the Administrator on remand.) 

        Registration Statements.  The only year as to which  the  owner  did
        not submit these to the Administrator  was  1984.   Along  with  its
        petition, however, the owner has submitted  copies  of  the  missing
        statements, on which the date-stamp of this  Division  for  December
        14, 1984, appears.  Because the Division is charged with a knowledge 
        of its own records, the  Commissioner  will  not  deem  registration
        statements to have been fatally absent from the owner's application.

        Reservice of RA-79.  The aforementioned letter to the  Administrator
        declaring that reservice had been  made,  attached  to  verification
        from the Postal Service that the owner had mailed something to the 







        Adm. Review Docket No.: EC 130311-RO

        remaining stabilized tenant, suffices, in the absence of a denial of 
        reservice by the tenant(s), to satisfy the  Commissioner  that  such
        reservice was made.

        All requested documentation, in sum, having  been  provided  to  the
        Administrator or previously placed in Divisional records, it is

        THEREFORE ORDERED, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
        Code, that this petition be and the same hereby is  granted  to  the
        extent  of  remanding  this  proceeding  to  the  Administrator  for
        continued processing of the  owner's  application.   The  order  and
        determination of the Rent Administrator remains in  full  force  and
        effect until a new order is issued on remand.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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