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.:FJ 410318-RO
                                            :  
                                               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            ALVIN H. GLICK                     DOCKET NO.:ZCJ 410025-OM
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                             

        ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                         AND REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL

        On October 18, 1991 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an 
        administrative appeal against an order issued on September 13, 1991 by 
        the District Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New 
        York) concerning the housing accommodations known as various apartments 
        of 41-43 Bedford Street, New York, New York.

        The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an application for 
        a Major Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increase for stabilized 
        apartments in the premises based on the installation of a boiler and 
        burner.  The owner submitted documentation in support of the 
        application, including cancelled checks, the contractor's certification 
        and government approvals.

        The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, denied the 
        application stating "owner/applicant failed to file the application 
        within two years from the completion date of installation."  The filing 
        date was determined when the Office of Rent Administration (ORA), at 
        Gertz Plaza, received the application on October 3, 1988.

        On appeal, the petitioner-owner states, in substance, that the "an 
        examination of the documentation submitted with the MCI application 
        indisputably establishes that said application was filed within two 
        years of the completion date of the installation.  More specifically, 
        in the Contractor's Certification submitted as part of the MCI 
        application, the Contractor certifies that the work commenced on 
        September 26, 1986 and was completed on September 29, 1986.  In that 
        the MCI Application was mailed to DHCR by certified mail on September 
        29, 1988, said application was clearly filed within two years of the 
        completion date of the installation."

        In response to the owner's petition, various tenants filed answers 
        stating, in substance, that A) "the MCI Application obviously was not 
        filed within the two year time period;" B) "the receipt for certified 
        mail is clearly postmarked September 29, 1988 which is legally (and 
        obviously) one day after the filing deadline, September 28, 1988;" C) 
        "dates appear to have been altered to accommodate the owner's 
        allegations of timely compliance;" D) "tenants have never received any 









          DOCKET NUMBER: FJ 410318-RO
        copies of Contractor's invoices for this so-called capital improvement 
        to indicate that in fact the alleged cost of the new boiler and 
        installation ($17,500) are true and accurate"; E) Tenants claims the 
        petition for administrative review was filed untimely.

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

        At the outset the Commissioner notes, that the owner did file the 
        petition timely.  The order was issued on September 13, 1991 and the 
        official U.S. Postal Service postmark of the envelope used for the 
        petition is dated October 18, 1991.  Therefore the owner did comply 
        with the Rent Stabilization Code Section 2529.2, "a PAR against an 
        order of a Rent Administrator must be filed in person on or by mail 
        with the DHCR within thirty-five days after the date such orders is 
        issued.  A PAR served by mail must be postmarked not more than thirty- 
        five days after the date of such order, to be deemed timely file."

        The Commissioner further notes that the instant application was served 
        on the Division on September 29, 1988, as evidenced by a date stamped 
        U.S. Postal receipt for certified mail.  According to the Rent 
        Stabilization Code, Section 2527.9(a), "when service is by registered 
        or certified mail, the stamped post office receipt shall constitute 
        sufficient proof of service."

        Since the contractor's certification indicates that the work in 
        question was completed on September 29, 1986 and since the application 
        was filed on September 29, 1988, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
        that on the face of the record this proceeding should be remanded to 
        the Administrator for such further processing of the Owner's MCI 
        application as may be deemed necessary, which processing should, among 
        other things consider the issue of the quality of the installation 
        herein (raised by the tenants in the proceeding below) and such further 
        contentions of the parties as may be raised upon the remand.

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

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

        ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                         Acting 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