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 
     IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EI 510011-RT
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: CF 430074-OM
       RAFAEL ESPINAL
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


       ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART
        AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION


     On September 7, 1990 the above named petitioner-tenant  filed  a  petition
     for administrative review against an order issued on August 28, 1990 by an 
     Rent Administrator concerning the housing  accommodation  known  as  75-85
     Elwood Street, New York, New York wherein  the  Administrator  granted  in
     part the owner's application for a rent increase based on the installation 
     of various major capital improvements (MCI).

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant  to  the  issue
     raised by the administrative appeal.

     The owner commenced  this  proceeding  on  June  13,  1988  by  filing  an
     application for a rent increase based  on  the  installation  of  aluminum
     windows ($54,696),  front  sidewalk  replaced  and  three  steps  repaired
     ($6,050), intercom ($3,315), mailboxes  ($2,061),  building  entrance  and
     vestibule doors, ($7,550), roof ($16,000) and pointing  and  waterproofing
     ($27,000).

     Forty-one tenants including the petitioner herein had answers objecting to 
     the increase.  The  objections  stated  that  the  application  which  the
     tenants saw did not indicate what the increase was  for  or  how  much  it
     would cost.  The tenants also asserted that the newly installed front door 
     was not secured properly and  therefore  should  not  merit  an  MCI  rent
     increase.

     On May 9, 1990, the Administrator  asked  the  owner  to  respond  to  the
     allegations of defective installation.

     On June 5, 1990 the owner responded stating that  the  MCI  rent  increase
     application had been available to the tenants and this application clearly 
     documented the cost of the various improvements and the amount of increase 
     requested.  An affidavit from the building's managing agent  was  enclosed
     stating that he personally inspected the doors on May 24, 1990  and  found
     them to be in proper working order.









          DOCKET NUMBER: EI 510011-RT
     In an order issued August 28, 1990, the Administrator determined that  the
     owner was entitled to a monthly rental increase of  $10.71  per  room  per
     month resulting from the approved costs of the  installations  except  the
     sidewalk and step repairs and  the  mailboxes  which  were  found  to  not
     constitute major capital improvements.  The effective date  for  the  rent
     increase for stabilized accommodations was set as February 1, 1989 with  a
     collectible date of  September  1,  1990.   The  effective  date  and  the
     collectible date for rent controlled accommodations was set  as  September
     1, 1990.

     In the petition for administrative review, the  tenant  asserts  that  the
     front door is broken, the intercom does now work,  the  building  has  not
     been completely waterproofed, and the  sidewalk  remains  in  a  state  of
     disrepair.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  for  administrative
     review should be granted to the extent of remanding  this  processing  the
     District Rent Administrator for further consideration.

     Section 2529.6 of the Code provides that administrative review is  limited
     to facts or evidence before a Rent Administrator or if facts  or  evidence
     are submitted with the petition and it is established that they could  not
     reasonably have been offered or included in the proceeding  prior  to  the
     issuance of the order being appealed, that  evidence  submitted  with  the
     petition may be considered.

     The tenant, for the first time in the petition, asserts that the  intercom
     malfunctions, the building has not been completely waterproofed,  and  the
     sidewalk remains in  a  state  of  disrepair  all  tenants  were  properly
     notified of their right to comment upon the owner's MCI application and in 
     fact on January 3, 1989 the petitioner and many other tenants submitted an 
     answer in which it was asserted that the newly installed  front  door  was
     malfunctioning.  Neither the petitioner nor any other  tenant  raised  any
     allegations concerning problems with the intercom or the waterproofing and 
     the  portion  of  the  application  regarding  the  sidewalk  was  denied.
     Acordingly, the instant proceeding is limited  to  those  facts  presented
     when this matter  was  before  the  District  Rent  Administrator,  namely
     whether the building's front door is properly installed and functioning

     With regard to the alleged defects in the  front  door  installation,  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that the  Administrator  did  not  properly
     investigate this matter before ordering the rent increase.   In  resolving
     this  issue  that  was  raised  by  numerous  tenants  the   Administrator
     erroneously relied on the self-serving statement of the  owner's  managing
     agent that he had  inspected  the  door  and  found  it  to  be  operating
     properly.  In view of the serious nature of the alleged  defect  that  was
     raised in a  timely  manner  by  a  significant  number  of  tenants,  the
     Administrator  should  have  either  ordered  a  physical  inspection   or
     statements from tenants who complained that all necessary repairs  to  the
     front door have been effectuated.
          
     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations,  and  the
     Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is









          DOCKET NUMBER: EI 510011-RT
     ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be and the same hereby is  granted  in
     part and the proceeding be and the same hereby is remanded to the District 
     Rent Administrator for further consideration.

     ISSUED:



                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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