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 
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EF 430350-RO
                                         :  
       PARHAM REALTY                        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
       c/o PARKOFF MANAGEMENT               DOCKET NO. BG 430584-OM
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On June 4, 1990 the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on May 25, 1990 by the  Rent
     Administrator, 92-31 Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York  concerning
     housing accommodations known as 110 Seaman Avenue,  New  York,  New  York,
     Various Apartments.  The Administrator denied the  owner's  major  capital
     improvement rent increase application predicated on  the  installation  of
     windows, boiler/burner, landscaping, roof,  lighting  and  pointing  at  a
     claimed cost of $159,719.94 on grounds that the owner failed to adequately 
     substantiate its application.

     The Administrator subsequently declined the owner's request to reopen  the
     proceeding under Docket  No.  BG  530584-OM  on  grounds  that  there  was
     insufficient basis to do so.

     In  this  petition  for  administrative  review  the  owner  contends,  in
     substance, that it did not receive the  notices  which  were  sent  to  it
     requesting additional documentation; and that it responded to  an  earlier
     request (November 1989) by submitting a copy of a  J-51  tax  certificate,
     with the understanding that it would expedite "the increase".

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

     A review of the record discloses that the owner's application  was  bereft
     of documentation sufficient to  substantiate  the  same.   The  owner  was
     requested to submit the following documentation but failed to do so:

           1) requisite contractors' certifications for each of  the  items
              listed in the application (none were  submitted),  2)  copies
              of complete contracts for  each  installation  detailing  the
              work performed (not even a proposal  was  submitted  for  the
              boiler/burner, 3) copies of both sides  of  cancelled  checks
              for the various items  (copies  one  sided  checks  totalling
              less than 1/3 of the claimed  cost  were  submitted),  4)  an
              affidavit from the insurance carrier  disclosing  the  amount
              of reimbursement received due to a fire  which  had  occurred
              in the subject  premises  (a  previous  application  for  the
              heating system was denied based on the then  owner's  failure
            







          DOCKET NUMBER: EF 430350-RO
              to provide this information-4AC102-142; CDR 5738), 5) 
              a requisite diagram showing all  elevations  where  pointing  was
              performed  and  a  statement  from  the  contractor  that  it
              performed all  the  work  which  was  necessary  and  6)  all
              requisite  governmental  approvals  and  sign-offs  for   the
              installations mandating same (none were submitted).

     As to the owner's assertion that it submitted copies  of  certificates  of
     eligibility issued under the J-51 program,  the  Commissioner  notes  that
     such certificates will be considered by the DHCR in addition  to,  but  do
     not constitute a substitute for,  requisite  substantiating  documentation
     including contracts, contractors' certifications,  governmental  approvals
     and proof of payment.  In any event, the owner was requested to and failed 
     to provide complete copies of the J-51 applications,  as  specified  in  a
     letter dated November 22, 1989 which the owner admits having received.

     The record discloses that in addition to  a  notice  dated  September  26,
     1988,  the  Administrator  mailed  notices  to  the   owner's   authorized
     representative on February 28, 1990 and  April  16,  1990  requesting  the
     aforementioned documentation.   Said  notices  were  mailed  to  the  same
     address used by the owner herein throughout these  proceedings.   None  of
     said notices were returned by the postal authorities as non-deliverable.

     In view of the  owner's  failure  to  submit  requisite  documentation  to
     properly  substantiate  its  application,   although   afforded   adequate
     opportunity to do  so,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  Administrator
     properly denied the application and terminated the proceeding.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  Stabilization
     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:





                                                                   
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                      Acting 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