EE 430165-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. 5260
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: EE 430165-RO

               Presbyterian Hospital c/o       DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
               Phipps Houses Service, Inc.,    DOCKET NO.: BG-430302-OM

                                              
                                   PETITIONER
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 18, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order issued on February 28, 
          1990 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          New York concerning housing  accommodations  known  as  625  West
          164th Street, New York, New York, various apartments.

          On July 19, 1990 the Commissioner issued  an  order  and  opinion
          dismissing the petition as untimely  filed.   As  the  result  of
          litigation initiated by the owner the matter was remitted to  the
          Division for consideration of the owner's petition on the merits.

          The  order  of  the  Administrator  appealed  herein  denied  the
          application  for  a  major  capital  improvement  rent   increase
          (masonry)  and  terminated  the  proceeding.   Said   order   was
          predicated upon the owner's failure to respond to  notices  dated
          December 6, 1989 and December 29, 1989 requesting the  submission
          of  further  information/evidence  required  for  the   continued
          processing of the application.  Among the  information  requested
          were  legible  copies  of  checks  and  the  contract   for   the
          improvement claimed in the application.  The  Commissioner  notes
          that the purchase orders submitted in the proceeding below  refer
          to  underlying  documentation   including   "specifications   for
          exterior facade  repairs"  prepared  by  a  professional  masonry
          consultant.

          In this petition the owner contends, in substance,  that  it  did
          not receive the first request  for  additional  information;  and
          that on February 10, 1990 the owner's filing agent forwarded  all
          information requested.  Submitted with the petition  are  various
          documents, including the specification for  exterior  repairs  at
          ten (10) separate buildings.

          After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  entire   record,   the
          Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  this  petition  should  be
          denied.

          At the outset the Commissioner notes  that  whether  or  not  the
          owner  receive  the  first  notice  date  December  6,  1989   is
          irrelevant particularly as the record discloses that  the  second
          "Final Notice" was properly mailed to the owner, addressed to its 






          EE 430165-RO
          filing agent in the proceeding below.  It is conceded  that  said
          notice  was,  in  fact,  received  by  the  owner's  agent.   The
          Commissioner further notes that while the notice of December  29,
          1989 specified that  the  requested  documentation  be  submitted
          within twenty (20) days from the date of mailing, the unaddressed 
          reply message submitted with the petition is dated  February  10,
          1990, well beyond the time limit for response  specified  in  the
          notice.  Not only  has  the  owner  failed  to  establish  proper
          mailing/delivery of  or  receipt  by  the  Administrator  of  the
          documentation submitted for the first time on  appeal,  but  said
          submission fails to include all of the documentation requested by 
          the Administrator.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion  and  finds  that
          the Administrator's order terminating the proceeding, based  upon
          the failure to submit necessary  documentation,  is  correct  and
          should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provision  of   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  denied;
          and that the order of the Rent Administrator  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is affirmed.

          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