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

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF

                Steven I. Feder, Esq.
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: BD110156OM


          On August 6, 1990 the above-named petitioner-tenant representative 
          filed an administrative appeal against an order issued on July 3, 
          1990 by the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          New York) concerning the housing complex known as 224-46A Horace 
          Harding Boulevard/Expressway ("Cloverdale Gardens"), Bayside, New 
          York, various apartments wherein the Administrator granted major 
          capital improvement (MCI) rent increases for the stabilized 
          apartments in the subject premises based on the installation of new 
          windows at the premises. 

          The Commissioner notes that the subject premises was converted to 
          cooperative status in 1985. 

          In this petition the tenants contend, in substance, that the 
          subject premises has not been properly registered; that the MCI 
          application was not filed by a proper party; that reserve funds 
          were used to pay for the improvement; and that the new windows are 
          of "extremely inferior quality".

          In response to the petition the owner asserts, in substance, that 
          the tenants cannot raise new arguments on appeal; that the premises 
          are properly registered; and that the windows were installed in a 
          workmanlike manner.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this processing should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          Regarding the tenants' contention that the subject premises has not 
          been properly registered, as noted above, the owner submitted a 
          response to the contrary. A review of Division records indicates 

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. EH130088.RT

          that the subject premises has not been properly registered. Said 
          records disclose that the owner filed building registrations for 
          the subject complex for the years 1984 (initial), 1985, 1988 and 
          1989. In addition, during the proceeding below, the owner submitted 
          a DHCR date stamped copy of the 1986 building registration as proof 
          of filing thereof. However, although the owner also submitted a 
          copy of an annual registration summary for 1987, the year the MCI 
          application was filed, the owner did not submit any evidence of 
          proof of such registration, nor does it appear that such evidence 
          was requested. DHCR records further indicate that the subject 
          complex has not been registered for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

          In view of the conflicting evidence and in light of Policy 
          Statement 92-3, which reflects DHCR policy regarding the type of 
          documentation required to substantiate proper registration,the 
          Commissioner finds that this proceeding should be remanded to the 
          Rent Administrator to determine whether the owner has fully 
          complied with registration requirements.

          With respect to the tenants' contention that the MCI application 
          was not filed by a proper party, Section 2523.6 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code provides, in pertinent part, that whenever an 
          attorney or other authorized representative appears for a party who 
          is involved in a proceeding before the DHCR, such person must file 
          a notice of appearance which shall be on a form prescribed by the 
          DHCR, unless the application which instituted the proceeding before 
          the DHCR stated the representation of such person and his or her 
          mailing address in the space allotted for the mailing address of 
          the represented party. If an authorized representative appears, 
          such notice of appearance must be accompanied by a written 
          authorization, duly verified or affirmed, by the party represented.

          Although the record indicates that the MCI application was filed by 
          a representative on behalf of the owner's managing agent, the above 
          mentioned written authorization is not part of the record. 
          Accordingly, on remand, should the owner establish that the 
          premises have been fully registered, then the Administrator should 
          determine whether the MCI application was filed by a proper party.

          With respect to the tenants' contention that the reserve fund was 
          used to pay for the improvement, although the owner indicated 

          Adm. Rev. Docket No. EH130088.RT

          during the proceeding below that reserve funds were not used, the 
          owner was not provided an opportunity to submit any evidence to 
          substantiate same. In view thereof, on remand, should the owner 
          establish that the premises have been fully registered, then the 
          Administrator should determine whether reserve funds were used. 

          Regarding the tenants' contention that the windows are of extremely 
          inferior quality, the Commissioner notes that several tenants 
          raised complaints during the proceeding below regarding the quality 
          and adequacy of the window installation which were not properly 
          addressed. Specifically, the record reveals that a notice 
          requesting tenants to indicate whether the owner had corrected  
          alleged window installation problems and advising that an 
          inspection would be conducted if the owner had not done so was not 
          sent to all tenants who raised such complaints. Further, the 
          subsequent inspection of the premises did not include the 
          apartments of all tenants raising complaints about the 
          installation. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that upon remand, 
          in the event the owner establishes that the subject premises have 
          been fully registered, the Administrator should consider the tenant 
          complaints regarding the quality and adequacy of the window 
          installation which were not properly addressed below.

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

          ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is, remanded 
          to the Rent Administrator for further consideration in accordance 
          with this order and opinion. The automatic stay of so much of the 
          Rent Administrator's order as directed a retroactive rent increase 
          for the rent-stabilized tenants (which stay took effect upon the 
          filing of the petitions for administrative review) is hereby 
          continued until a new order is issued upon the remand. However, the 
          Administrator's determination as to a prospective rent increase is 
          not stayed and shall remain in effect until the Administrator 
          issues a new order upon the remand.


                                                  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