STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner