OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.
                                         :  GA 110085-RT;GA 110376-RT
     VARIOUS TENANTS OF 86-02 PARK LANE     GB 110386-RT;GC 110108-RT
     SOUTH, QUEENS, NEW YORK                GC 110110-RT;GC 110112-RT
                           PETITIONERS   :  GC 110113-RT;GC 110114-RT
     ------------------------------------X  GC 110115-RT;GC 110121-RT
                                            GC 110123-RT;GC 110124-RT
                                            GC 110125-RT;GC 110126-RT
                                            GC 110127-RT;GC 110128-RT
                                            GC 110129-RT;GC 110130-RT
                                            GC 110131-RT;GC 120132-RT
                                            GC 110133-RT;GC 120134-RT
                                            GC 110135-RT;GC 110136-RT
                                            GC 120203-RT;GC 120204-RT
                                            GC 110029-RT


     On various dates the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed or refiled 
     Administrative Appeals against an order issued on December 6, 1991 by the 
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York concerning 
     housing accommodations known as 86-02 Park Lane South, Woodhaven, New York, 
     various apartments, wherein the administrator granted a major capital 
     improvement (MCI) rent increase for both the controlled and stabilized 
     apartments in the subject premises based on the installation of the 
     following improvements: new roof, parapets, new windows, waste compactor, 
     and elevator upgrading at the premises.

     On August 3, 1989 the owner of the subject 54 unit building filed the 
     instant major capital improvement application together with various 
     supporting documentation.  The owner indicated in the application that a 
     superintendent or manager's office was not available for on premises 
     examination of the application by the tenants.

     By notice dated October 26, 1989 the Administrator, as is customary where 
     there is no resident superintendent's office, served the tenants with a copy 
     of the application and advised the tenants that the owner's application 
     together with all supplements and supporting documentation were available 
     (by appointment) for examination at the offices of the DHCR.  Various 
     tenants responded to the notice objecting to the application.  In addition, 
     the tenants' representative by letter dated January 10, 1990, requested 
     pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law, an opportunity to review all 
     files with respect to the instant application.

     Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under review 
     finding that the installations qualified as a major capital improvement, 
     determining that the application complied with the relevant laws and 


          DOCKET NUMBER: GA 110085-RT
     regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted by the owner.  
     Said order contains the notation that the tenants failed to raise any 
     relevant complaints regarding the installations.

     In these petitions for administrative review (consolidated herein for 
     disposition) the tenants request reversal of the Administrator's order 
     citing various service related complaints with regard to the window and 
     elevator installations, categorizing the roof work as a repair and again 
     requesting a review of all documents related to owner's application.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that this 
     petition should be remanded to the District Rent Administrator for further 
     processing in accordance with this order and opinion.

     Whereas the Rent Administrator found that the various installations 
     qualified as major capital improvements and that the tenants raised no 
     relevant objections to the adequacy of the work performed, it appears from 
     the record that the request of the tenants' representative to examine the 
     owner's application and all underlying documentation was not adhered to.  In 
     view of what appears to be a denial of due process, the Commissioner deems 
     it appropriate to remand this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for such 
     further processing as may be deemed appropriate, on notice to all parties.

     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.  The automatic stay of 
     so much of rent increase is hereby continued until a new order is issued 
     upon remand.  However, the Administrator's determination as to a prospective 
     rent increase is not stayed and shall remain in full force and effect until 
     the Administrator issues a new order upon the remand.


                                          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