FC 130120 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. 5916
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FC 130120 RO

                 MACNISH ASSOCIATES C/O
           ROBERT E. HERMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW,     DRO DOCKET NO.: ZDK 110243 OM

                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


                   ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL


          This order and opinion is issued pursuant to an order of  Justice
          Robert T. Groh of the Supreme Court, Queens County, Remanding  an
          Article 78 proceeding and directing the Division of  Housing  and
          Community Renewal (DHCR) to issue a determination of the  owner's
          administrative appeal herein.

          The owner of the subject  premises  (Located  at  84-16  Elmhurst
          Avenue and 44-05/10/11/16/21/25  Macnish  Street,  Elmhurst,  New
          York) initiated the proceeding below by filing with the  District
          Rent Administrator an application for Major  Capital  Improvement
          (MCI)  rent  increases  for  the  stabilized  apartments  in  the
          premises based on the installation of new  windows  in  March  of
          1987.  The record discloses a letter from the  petitioner  (dated
          November, 1989), which stated that the  owner's  MCI  application
          was  being  submitted  as  a  refiling  of  a  prior  application
          allegedly lost by the DHCR.  The petitioner stated that the prior 
          application  was  filed  on  April  2,  1987,  and  submitted  an
          affidavit from the owner's employee  stating  that  the  employee
          personally delivered two copies of an MCI application to the DHCR 
          on April 2, 1987, and that the owner's copy  was  date  and  time
          stamped.   Subsequently,  in  January  of  1991,  the  petitioner
          submitted to the Administrator a copy of Form RA-79 N (Notice  to
          Tenant of Commencement of MCI Proceeding), which is date  stamped
          April 2, 1987 but is not identified by a docket number.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,  denied
          the owner's application, stating that the owner  failed  to  file
          the application within two years  from  the  completion  date  of
          installation.

          This order was based upon the owner's failure to provide adequate 
          and substantial proof that the owner was re-filing an application 
          submitted on April 2, 1987.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that:

               (A)  The owner's  MCI  application  was  filed  with






          FC 130120 RO
               the DHCR by hand  delivery  on  April  2,  1987
                    and the owner's copy  of  the  application  was
                    date stamped to that effect;

               (B)  Upon receiving  no  response  to  the  original
                    filing, the owner re-filed the  application  by
                    certified mail in November of  1989,  at  which
                    time it submitted the employee affidavit; and

               (C)    The   Administrator's    determination    was
                    contrary to the evidence on record.

          In response  to  the  owner's  petition,  various  tenants  filed
          answers stating, among  other  things,  that  since  the  owner's
          application was stamped received by DHCR on May 4, 1990,  and  is
          dated September 15, 1989, the owner's application was filed  more
          than two years after the completion of the window installation.

          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes at the outset that  the  records  of  this
          Division indicate that the subject MCI application was  filed  on
          November 27, 1989.  In addition, the record  discloses  that  the
          owner submitted two documents to substantiate the  alleged  first
          filing of the MCI application on  April  2,  1987.   One  was  an
          affidavit by its employee stating that the application was  filed
          by personal delivery on April 2, 1987, and that the owner's  copy
          of the application was dat d  stamped.   The  other  was  an  un-
          docketed copy of RA-79N, date stamped on April 2, 1987.

          The Commissioner further  notes  that  under  the  procedures  in
          effect at the time in question, following the initial  submission
          of an MCI  application  to  the  Administrator,  the  application
          (which does not include the  RA-79N)  was  screened,  assigned  a
          docket number and then the  docketed  RA-79N  (along  with  other
          forms) was forwarded to the owner.   Thus,  the  RA-79N  was  not
          provided to owner's as part of the original MCI application  form
          package to be filed by owners and the affidavit submitted by  the
          owner is belied by the un-docketed copy of RA-79 N  date  stamped
          April 2, 1987.  Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to  submit
          a date stamped copy of the MCI  application  allegedly  filed  on
          April 2, 1987, and since no other proof  has  been  submitted  to
          substantiate  the  April  2,  1987  filing,  the  Administrator's
          determination is supported by the record.

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is  found  that
          the Administrator's order was correct and should be affirmed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable  provisions  of  the
          Rent Stabilization  Code  for  New  York  City,  and  Operational
          Bulletin 84-1, it is

          ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeal be, and the  same  hereby
          is, denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and  the  same
          hereby is, affirmed.








          FC 130120 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