Adm. Rev. Docket No. EH430179.RO

                                  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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: EH430179RO
          APPEAL OF
                   
                 Mark Greenberg Real Estate
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO: CE430106OM
          ------------------------------------X


                  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 
          issued.

          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 
          arguments.

          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 
          appealed herein.

          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.


          ISSUED:  




                                                                             
                                                       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