ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 430216 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. 5797
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. FA 430216 RO
: DISTRICT RENT ORDER
DOCKET NO. BI 430135 - OM
YORK AND 87 ASSOCIATES
C/O PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 18, 1991 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on
December 19, 1990 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall
Street, Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known as 448
East 87th Street, New York, New York, various apartments.
The owner initiated the instant proceeding below on September
14, 1987 by filing an application for a major capital improvement
rent increase based on the installation, in the subject 19 family
dwelling, of a new intercom system and new mailboxes at a total
claimed cost of $3,778.00. In response to a poll conducted by the
Administrator the tenants of three apartments (4A, 4B & 5A)
alleged defects with the intercom system. By notices dated
September 19th, and November 19th, 1990 the owner was requested to
investigate and correct the tenants' complaints.
The order of the Administrator appealed herein denied the
application based on the owner's failure to respond to the
aforesaid notices. That portion of the application as pertained
to mailboxes was denied on the additional ground that they were
reinstalled in the outer vestibule and thus did not constitute a
major capital improvement.
In its petition the owner herein contends, in substance, that
it did not receive either of the notices dated September 19th or
November 19th, 1990; and that since the filing of its application
there was a change in its mailing address to 417 Fifth Avenue, New
York, New York. The owner further contends, in substance, that an
increase should have been allowed for the mailboxes since they are
located behind a locked front entrance door and thereby satisfy
the requirements for a major capital improvement.
In response thereto one tenant reiterated a statement made in
the proceeding below that the intercom and mailboxes were
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. FA 430216 RO
installed as part of an agreement the owner was prepared to make
in order to induce purchasers at the time the building was being
converted to a cooperative form of ownership.
After a careful consideration of the entire record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance herewith.
With respect to the mailboxes the record discloses that they
were reinstalled in a different location in the outer vestibule
while at the same time the owner affixed the intercom panel to the
exterior of the building. It is the established position of the
Division that the installation of mailboxes per se do not
constitute a major capital improvement but rather their structural
relocation to a more secure area behind locked doors. Since the
mailboxes in question were reinstalled in the same general
location as the old ones, the Administrator properly found them
not to qualify as a major capital improvement since said
installation did not entail the additional requirement that they
be relocated from the outer vestibule to a more secure inner area
behind a second set of locked doors (as provided for in the
contract for the intercom system).
However, with respect to the intercom system the record
discloses that two physical inspections were conducted of the
subject premises, the reports of which disclose that said system
was functioning; that the inspector was buzzed into the building
by the superintendent; and that two of the tenants who objected in
the proceeding below failed to provide access to the inspector on
two occasions.
While the record further shows that the notices seeking the
owner's compliance with the tenants' complaints were properly
addressed to the petitioner herein at the address specified, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that it was error for the
Administrator to have predicated so much of the application as
related to the intercom system based on the owner's failure to
address complaints found to be unsubstantiated by independent
investigation. Accordingly, this proceeding is remanded to the
Rent Administrator to complete the processing of so much of the
application as pertains to the intercom system.
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. FA 430216 RO
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
