Adm. Rev. Docket No. EH430179.RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: EH430179RO
Mark Greenberg Real Estate
PETITIONER DOCKET NO: CE430106OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On August 21, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
August 6, 1990, by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza), concerning
the housing accommodations known as 123 West 93rd Street, New York,
New York, various apartments.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 19, 1988 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on the installation of the
following items at a total claimed cost of $313,048.00: windows,
roof, pointing - brick work, asbestos removal and boiler/burner.
On August 6, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review denying the application upon a finding that an
outstanding building-wide reduction order was in effect under
Docket No. AB430065B; and that no rent restoration order had been
In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that the
Administrator had erred in interpreting the order issued under
Docket No. AB430065B to be a "building-wide" rent reduction order.
The tenants responded asserting various due process and substantive
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. EH430179.RO
It is the established position of the Division, as reflected in
Policy Statement 90-8, that "where there is a DHCR order in effect
determining a failure to maintain a building-wide service which
resulted in a rent reduction ", such order will constitute a bar to
obtaining a major capital improvement rent increase. The subsequent
restoration of rent based on a finding of service restoration will
result in the prospective elimination of this sanction.
The Commissioner notes that the December 17, 1986 rent reduction
order (Docket No. AB430065B) relied on by the Administrator
(predicated on the elimination of the building's canopy), was
designated as an order reducing maximum rent "Individual" and was
limited to a single apartment. In view of the limited nature of
said order the owner may have misconstrued the import thereof in
failing to promptly file for rent restoration. Moreover, it is
undisputed in a subsequently filed rent restoration proceeding
(Docket No. FA420153OR) that the canopy in question was replaced in
June 1990, prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order
Based on the foregoing,the Commissioner deems it appropriate to
remand this proceeding to the Administrator to process the owner's
MCI application on the merits. However, in view of the fact that
the building-wide service was not restored until June 1990, any
rent increases that may ultimately be found warranted should be
effective no earlier than July 1, 1990, the first rent payment date
after service was restored.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions 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 granted to
the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator.
The Administrator's order is hereby revoked.
JOSEPH A. D' AGOSTA