ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EL 430260-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. NO. 5755 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET  NO.  EL  430260-RO
                                                       
                                              :     D.R.O.    DOCKET     NO.
                                                 BL-410055-OM
          MURRAY          HILL          36          ST.           ASSOCIATES
          C/O MARTIN A. SHLUFMAN   

                                              
                                 PETITIONER   :  
          ------------------------------------X 

           ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On December 21, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          November 19, 1990 by the  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known as 200 
          East 36th Street, New York, New York, various apartments,  wherein
          the Administrator denied  the  application  for  a  major  capital
          improvement rent increase due to the  owner's  failure  to  comply
          with notices to submit necessary information. 

               Thereafter the owner commenced a proceeding  in  the  Supreme
          Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law  and  Rules
          which resulted in  a  court  ordered  stipulation  remanding  this
          proceeding to the Division for purposes of issuing a determination 
          of the petition.

               The instant matter stems from an application filed  with  the
          Division on December 8, 1987, based on the installation of  a  new
          roof.  Less than two months earlier the  owner  filed  a  separate
          application (assigned  Docket  No.  BJ  410245-OM)  based  on  the
          installation of new windows.      

               Subsequently the owner was  requested  to  submit  additional
          information regarding, among other things, the use of reserve fund 
          monies to pay for the work in question in view of  various  tenant
          allegations to that effect.    

               Upon  the  owner's  failure  to  comply  with  notices  dated
          September 25th and October 16th, 1990 the Administrator issued the 
          denial order appealed herein.





               The Commissioner notes that on October  28,  1988  the  owner
          filed a third application (assigned Docket No. CJ 410165-OM) based 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EL 430260-RO
          on the installation of both windows and a roof.  Said application
          was also denied by the Administrator pursuant to an  order  issued
          on December 14, 1990 predicated on the owner's failure to  respond
          to notices dated October 11th, and November 8, 1990.  

               In  this  petition  for  administrative  review   the   owner
          contends, in substance, that it timely responded to  requests  for
          information received under Docket Number BJ 410245-OM after having 
          been granted an extension of time in which  to  do  so;  that  the
          information requested of it  in  BL  410055-OM  was  substantially
          identical both in substance and form regarding the use of  reserve
          fund monies as in BJ  410245-OM;  and  that  having  answered  the
          inquiry in that proceeding, it did  not  realize  that  a  further
          response was required with  respect  to  the  instant  proceeding.
          Submitted with the petition are copies of various notices and  the
          owner's answer dated November 1, 1990. 

               By letter dated May 17, 1991  the  owner,  by  its  attorney,
          requests that this petition be amended to include the order issued 
          under Docket No. CJ 410165-OM.

               In answer to the petition  various  tenants  reiterate  their
          challenge to the merits of the owner's application  based  on  the
          claimed use of reserve fund monies.

               After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  record,  the
          Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this  proceeding  should  be
          remanded to the Administrator for further processing in accordance 
          with this order and opinion.

               Whereas  the  owner  filed   two   separate   major   capital
          improvement applications in the latter part of 1987, the first for 
          the installation of windows and the second for a  roof,  it  would
          appear that the owner may have been  confused  as  to  the  docket
          numbers assigned to the respective applications  in  view  of  the
          time which elapsed between the filing  of  same  and  the  notices
          requesting the submission of additional information and  evidence.
          Since the owner did respond to  the  Administrator's  request  for
          information under Docket No. BJ 410245-OM, the Commissioner  deems
          it appropriate to remand this proceeding to the Rent Administrator 
          for further processing on the merits in  conjunction  with  Docket
          No. BJ 410245-OM currently pending before the Division.   

               The Commissioner notes  that  Docket  No.  CJ  410165-OM  was
          denied  and  should  be  terminated   as   said   application   is
          duplicative of the same installations for which applications  were
          still open under Docket Nos. BJ 410245-OM and  BL  410055  at  the
          time of the third filing. 

               THEREFORE, in accordance with  the  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Code, it is



               ORDERED, that this  petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is
          granted to the extent of remanding this  proceeding  to  the  Rent
          Administrator for further processing in accordance with this order 
          and opinion. 







          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EL 430260-RO
          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