ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 110033 RT
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.:
FF 110033 RT
:
DRO ORDER NO.:
CD 130044 OM
CAROL COHEN
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR
On June 3, 1991 the above named petitioner tenant filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued May 10, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations located at 47-25 40th Street, Sunnyside, New York.
Apartment No. 1F. The Administrator granted in part, the owner's
application for rent increase based on the installation of major
capital improvements (MCI).
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on April 12, 1988 by
filing an application for rent increase by reason of the
installation of major capital improvements. The improvements
claimed by the owner were--elevator upgrading, intercom, new roof
and landscaping at a total cost of $31,875.01. On October 17,
1988, the Administrator served all tenants with a copy of the
application and afforded them an opportunity to respond.
Various tenants, of whom petitioner was one, did respond.
Petitioner stated that the roof work was beginning to buckle and
bubble and was generally performed in an unprofessional manner
and that the landscaping was deteriorating in that several of the
shrubs died and were not replaced. The tenant also stated that
the new intercom used the same buzzer in the apartment for the
lobby and apartment door, making it impossible to know which door
someone was ringing. Finally, the tenant stated that the
elevator work was due to years of neglect and it "does not
operate in a manner which one can feel 100% safe with." The
Commissioner notes that 34 other tenants filed identical
responses as well as three other tenants who filed individual
responses.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 110033 RT
The Administrator notified the owner of the tenants'
responses by letters dated January 31, 1991 and March 5, 1991.
The owner was afforded an opportunity to respond and did so on
March 14, 1991. The owner stated that all work was done in a
professional manner, that security bars were installed in an
attempt to provide additional security against intruders, that
the landscaping was attended to by replacing any shrubs that had
died, that no complaints were ever received regarding the
intercom and that the elevator was overhauled pursuant to the
contract. The Examiner's notes indicate that the tenant of
Apartment 2A was contacted and given the opportunity to respond
to the owner's statements. No other responding tenant, including
the petitioner, was contacted. The tenant of Apartment 2A did
not respond.
On May 10, 1991 the Administrator issued the order appealed
from. The amounts for the roof were granted in full, the
elevator costs were approved except for $205 representing a
filing fee, the intercom costs were approved except for $279.26
representing sales tax, and the landscaping was denied as not
qualifying for an MCI. The total approved cost was $28,035 for
which the Administrator ordered appropriate rent increases for
rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants. The Administrator's
order specifically stated that "Notices mailed to the complaining
tenants on March 21, 1991 failed to elicit any further
responses."
On appeal the tenant states, inter alia, "notices that were
mailed March 21, 1991 were never received by tenants." The
tenant also stated that the elevator and intercom malfunction.
The owner filed a response stating that if the tenants did not
receive copies of the March 21 notice it was through no fault of
theirs. The owner also stated that the intercoms and elevator
work properly.
After a careful review of the evidence in the record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding must be
remanded to the Administrator for further processing.
It is apparent from the record that only one tenant was
afforded the opportunity to respond to the owner's letter of
March 21, 1991. None of the other 36 tenants were sent a copy of
this letter and allowed to comment. As a result of this omission
by the Administrator, it cannot be determined that the
improvements for which the rent increase was granted were done in
a workmanlike manner. Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it
necessary to remand this proceeding to reconsider whether the
rent increase is warranted. On remand, the Administrator should
afford each tenant who filed a response to the owner's
application the opportunity to see and comment on the owner's
letter and ascertain, by a physical inspection if necessary, that
the improvements were properly installed and that the rent
increase is warranted.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 110033 RT
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is,
remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing in
accordance with this order and opinion. The Administrator's
determination regarding the rent increase shall continue to be in
full force and effect until the Administrator issues a new order
on remand.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
