EE 630232-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: EE 630232-RO

               Bernard Carr,                   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
                                               DOCKET NO.: CE 630041-OM


          The above-named petitioner-owner timely refiled  a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on March  23,  1990
          by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          New York concerning housing accommodations known as  2570  Briggs
          Avenue, Bronx, New York, various apartments, wherein the  owner's
          application for a major capital  improvement  rent  increase  was

          The instant matter stems  from  an  application  filed  with  the
          Administrator  in  May  1988  predicated  on  the   building-wide
          installation of thermal windows at a claimed cost of  $44,121.00.
          In support of said application the owner submitted an installment 
          payment contract dated July  29,  1986,  a  promissory  note  and
          mortgage both dated September 16, 1986  and  a  letter  from  the
          contractor, dated November 14, 1986 indicating that  as  of  said
          date payment of $13,436.00 had been received, leaving  a  balance
          of $30,685.00 to be paid over 36  months  at  12.5%  interest  in
          monthly  installments  of  $1,026.00.   Also  submitted   was   a
          Contractor's Statement, dated January 22,  1988,  to  the  effect
          that based on a total contract cost of $44,121.00, $24,025.00 had 
          been paid leaving an unpaid balance of $20,096.00.

          Various tenants responded  to  the  application  alleging,  among
          other  things,  that  the  windows  were  of  poor  quality   and
          defectively installed.

          On March 23, 1990 the Administrator  issued  the  order  appealed
          herein denying the application.  Said order  bears  the  notation
          that the  owner  failed  to  establish  proof  of  payment  after
          requests for same on November 10, 1989 and December 27, 1989.

          In this petition for administrative review the owner contends, in 
          substance, that proof of payment was sent on December  30,  1989,
          three  days  after  the  request  for   additional   information.
          Submitted with the petition are copies of various checks  payable
          to  the  window  contractor  and  a  letter  addressed   to   the
          Administrator, dated December 29, 1989,  indicating  that  checks
          and a receipt for one money  order,  totalling  $44,150.00,  were
          enclosed therewith.

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

          EE 630232-RO
          remanded to the Rent  Administrator  for  further  processing  in
          accordance with this order and opinion.

          At the outset the Commissioner notes that the owner's  submission
          (a copy of which was enclosed on  appeal)  was  received  by  the
          Administrator on January 3, 1990.  

          It appears that the Administrator's determination was  predicated
          upon the fact that the submitted checks (a money order receipt is 
          not included) failed to add up to the total cost claimed  in  the
          application; that one of the checks pre-dates by  several  months
          the contract in question; and that the  owner  failed  to  submit
          copies of a series of promissory notes (35) referred  to  in  the
          installment contract.  

          However, in view of the fact that the  owner  did  submit  checks
          totalling  $43,124.00   (including  interest  which  is  not   an
          allowable MCI  expense),  which  amount  reflects  a  substantial
          portion  of  the  contract  price  and  since  one  check,  dated
          September 7, 1988, in the amount of $14,198.00  is  drawn  on  an
          "Attorney Trust Account" and bears  the  notation  "pay-off  2570
          Briggs Windows", the Commissioner deems it appropriate, under the 
          circumstances  herein,  to  remand   this   proceeding   to   the
          Administrator for  such  further  processing  as  may  be  deemed
          necessary so as to  afford  the  owner  a  final  opportunity  to
          substantiate the claimed cost of the window installation.

          In addition, upon the remand consideration  should  be  given  to
          the allegations of the tenants raised in the proceeding below and 
          such further allegations as may be raised upon  the  remand  with
          regard to the  extent  and  quality  of  the  work  performed  in
          connection with the window installation.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the   Rent
          Stabilization Code, 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.


                                                       JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                       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