ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EE 130482 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  SJR  5483
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET  NO.  EE  130482  RO
                                                       
                                              :     D.R.O.    DOCKET     NO.
                                                 BL 110338-OM
                                                  
                PAMENAR                                               REALTY
                                                            
                                 PETITIONER   :  
          ------------------------------------X 

               ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR


               On May 4, 1990, the above-referenced owner filed  a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on April 18, 1990, by 
          the Rent Administrator, 92-31  Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New
          York, concerning the housing accommodation known as 20-05  Parsons
          Boulevard (various apartments), 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 issued by Justice H.  A.  Posner
          so directing the Division.    

               This  proceeding  originated  when  the   owner   filed   the
          aforementioned application, on DHCR form RA-79,  on  December  15,
          1987.  The asserted improvements consisted  of  railings,  gutters
          and leaders, a door, a walkway, steps and pointing.  

               On February 17 1988, the  Division  requested  the  owner  to
          complete part 4 of the aforementioned form; seven days  later  the
          owner complied.  On April 27, 1988, the Division sent the  tenants
          its form RA-79N, Notice to Tenant of Commencement of Proceeding to 
          Consider the Owner's Application for  a  Rent  Increase  Based  on
          Major Capital Improvement(s); that notice stated that  a  copy  of
          the application was enclosed. 





               On March 14, 1990, the  Division  requested  that  the  owner
          (1) complete  and  resubmit  Supplement  IV  to  form  RA-79,  the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EE 130482 RO
          original  submission  having  been  unacceptably  incomplete,  and
          (2)  submit  proof  of   all   annual   building   and   apartment
          registrations.   On  March  23  the  owner  submitted   a   packet
          containing inter alia the requested evidence of registration and a 
          letter stating in part:  "[O]n February 24, 1988 your  office  had
          us complete Part 4 . . . of RA 79 . . . .  On April 27,  1988  the
          tenants were served with the corrected forms by the DHCR .  .  .".

               The  ensuing  order,  here  appealed,  denied  the  requested
          increase on the ground that the owner had "failed to  respond  and
          submit information/evidence required for the  processing  of  this
          application.  3/14/90".

               Petitioner argues that it provided all requested  information
          to the Administrator on March 23, 1990.

               After careful consideration of the record in this matter, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  proceeding  should  be
          remanded to the Administrator for continued processing.

               Of the items requested on March 14, 1990, the  owner  clearly
          provided the registration documents.  And  though  it  is  equally
          clear that a  completed  Supplement  IV  to  form  RA-79  was  not
          provided, that is insufficient reason to deny this increase in the 
          instant circumstances.

               The  owner's  assertion  --  in  the  aforementioned   letter
          received on March 23, 1990,  by  the  Administrator  --  that  the
          latter had had the owner complete part 4 of the RA-79 on  February
          24, 1988, is amply borne out by  the  file  herein.   The  second,
          crucial assertion in that letter, that this  Division  served  the
          tenants  with  the  corrected  forms,  is  corroborated   by   the
          aforementioned form RA-79N issued on April 27, 1988. 

               Supplement IV consists of the owner's certification that  the
          affected  tenants  have  been  served  with  the   rental-increase
          application on form RA-79.  The requirement that it  be  filed  is
          intended to motivate owners to make  such  service  in  fact,  the
          ultimate  goal  being  timely  notification  to  tenants  of   the
          application.  While no such certification was filed in the instant 
          proceeding, the Commissioner is  satisfied  that  service  on  the
          tenants was made by the Division, the goal of tenant  notification
          being realized thereby.  As the tenants herein, in fact,  received
          notice of the owner's application and a reasonable opportunity  to
          respond  thereto  prior  to  the  District  Rent   Administrator's
          determination of said application,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that it would be inequitable under these circumstances  to
          deny a rental increase solely due to the absence of a  Supplement-
          IV certification.  Processing of the  owner's  application  herein
          should therefore be renewed.




               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and
          Code, it is

               ORDERED, that this petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          granted  to  the  extent  of  remanding  this  proceeding  to  the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EE 130482 RO
          Administrator for processing of the aforementioned application  in
          accordance with this opinion. 

          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