EH 630258-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     S.J.R. DOCKET NO.: 5385
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EH 630258-RO
                 MYRTLE BROTHERTON,                       
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      BG 630727-OM
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   



          On August 17, 1990, the above-named owner, refiled a petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on June 8,  1990,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommodations,  in
          the premises known as 2685 Valentine  Avenue,  Bronx,  New  York,
          wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application for 
          a rent increase based on major capital improvements (MCI).

          On September 14, 1990, the owner's refiled petition was dismissed 
          due to her failure to correct the procedural defects of t e  ear-
          lier petition.

          Subsequent to the dismissal, the  owner  commenced  a  proceeding
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in the 
          Supreme Court (Bronx).  Pursuant to a stipulation of the  parties
          the matter was remitted to the Division of Housing and  Community
          Renewal (DHCR) for the purpose of rendering  a  determination  on
          the merits of the owner's petition.

          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 petition for review.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on July 3, 1987 by filing  an
          application for a rent increase based on major  capital  improve-
          ments, to wit - new windows, boiler/burner, and window guards  at
          a total cost of $84,740.00.

          The owner certified that on November  2,  1987  she  served  each
          tenant with a copy of the application and placed a  copy  of  the
          entire application including all required  supplements  and  sup-
          porting documentation with the  resident  superintendent  of  the
          subject building.

          One tenant, filed an objection  to  the  owner's  application  in
          opposition to any increase.

          On June 8, 1990, the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here







          EH 630258-RO
          under review finding that the owner had failed to submit complete 
          information, had failed to comply with  two  follow-up  requests,
          and denying the application.

          In her petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and alleges  that  the
          file was misplaced and that on March 16, 1990 she  spoke  with  a
          DHCR employee who allegedly told her that the file was misplaced.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The  Commissioner  notes  that   the   self-serving   allegations
          contained in the owner's  petition  are  uncorroborated  and  are
          unsupported by any substantiating evidence.  

          The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  Rent  Administrator's   file
          indicates that on April 2, 1990 and again  on  May  2,  1990  the
          owner was served with Reques s  for  Additional  Information/Evi-
          dence (the latter bearing the  written  notation  in  red  ink  -
          "Final Notice") advising the owner,  "Additional  information  is
          required in order to continue processing  your  MCI  application"
          and affording the owner an additional twenty days each  time,  to
          submit the information necessary to complete the owner's  applica
          tion.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner did not respond  to  either
          notice nor does the owner even allege in her  petition  that  she
          responded.  The original application filed by the owner  on  July
          3, 1987, absent the requested information, w s  fatally  insuffi-
          cient in that it lacked required information on  seven  different
          grounds, to wit - side 2 of supplement I for boiler-burner, proof 
          of payment for boiler-burner and windows, explanation of discrep 
          ancy between actual cost of windows and claimed cost, non-submis 
          sion of approvals, permits, and Certificate of Operation (B  Form
          16A from the Department of Buildings, Certificate  of  Electrical
          inspection from Bureau of Electrical Control), non-submission  of
          loan/grant agreement and rent cap letter from H.P.D., non-submis 
          sion of executed contract for boiler-burner,  and  non-submission
          of statement regarding the age of the replaced windows.


          The record in the instant case indicates that the owner  did  not
          correctly comply with the  application  procedures  for  a  major
          capital improvement and the Rent  Administrator  properly  denied
          the application.  The owner has neither demonstrated any error in 
          the original proceeding, nor offered  any  reason  why  the  Rent
          Administrator's order should be disturbed.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations of New York City, 
          it is          

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.








          EH 630258-RO

          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