DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NO.: EH630246RO
1512 BEACH AVENUE H D F C,
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.: CL630074OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On August 1, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner timely re-filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
March 13, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1512 Beach Avenue, Bronx, NY, various
apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's
application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase
which was based on the installation of windows, because the owner
submitted incomplete information on his application.
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 the instant proceeding on December 8, 1988 by
initially filing an application for a rent increase based on the
building-wide installation of new windows at a total cost of
On March 13, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that the owner's application was incomplete
because two items were left blank.
In this PAR, the owner requests reversal of the Administrator's
order and contends, in substance, that it was not furnished an
opportunity to submit a corrected application.
The tenants did not file any objections to the owner's application
although afforded an opportunity to do so.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Rent Administrator.
The items listed on the order as being incomplete on the MCI
application were question 4(c) on form RA-79 and one question in
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH630246RO
Supplement Section A on form RA-79 Supplement 1. Question 4(c) on
form RA-79 was properly answered on the original application. (The
Examiner's Progress Sheet correctly indicates that question 4(b) on
form RA-79 was not answered.)
A review of the record indicates that the owner's application was
substantially complete, including the submission of various
supporting documentation. Under the circumstances, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator should either
have rejected the application without prejudice to refiling (rather
than denying the application) or afforded the owner an opportunity
to submit complete information within a reasonable period of time.
The Commissioner notes that the owner submitted a completed
application for an MCI rent increase after receiving the Rent
Administrator's order. On remand, this application should be
processed on the merits.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that these proceedings be, and the same hereby are,
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further consideration in
accordance with this order and opinion.
LULA M. ANDERSON