STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
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.:
PETITIONER BG 630727-OM
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-
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
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
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
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA