STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
------------------------------------X ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DOCKET NOS.: GK410069RT,
APPEALS OF GK420070RT, GL430136RT,
Frank Mysto GL430032RT
PETITIONERS DOCKET NO: FG430042OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On various dates the above named petitioner-tenants timely filed or
refiled petitions for administrative review (PAR) against an order
issued on October 27, 1992 by a Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza)
concerning the housing accommodations known as 196 Spring Street,
New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator
determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on
the installation of major capital improvements (MCIS).
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these
petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and
involve common issues of law and fact.
The owner commenced this proceeding on July 15, 1991 by initially
filing an application for a rent increase based on the installation
of the following items at a total claimed cost of $55,100.00: a
boiler/burner and a new roof.
The tenants did not submit objections to the owner's application.
On October 27, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the installations qualified as MCIS,
determining that the application complied with the relevant laws
and regulations based upon the supporting documentation submitted
by the owner, and allowing rent increases for rent controlled and
rent stabilized tenants.
Adm. Rev. Docket No. GK410069.RT
In their petitions, the tenants, contend in substance, that they
were not notified of and never had the opportunity to respond to
the owner's application. Two of the tenants additionally claim that
the boiler is in violation of asbestos regulations.
In response to the tenants' petitions, the owner contends that the
tenants were given the opportunity to comment on the application;
that the tenants do not substantiate their claims; that the owner
included in his application a sufficient number of copies of RA-79
forms and pre-addressed mailing labels for the DHCR to mail to all
tenants; that the owner received from the DHCR on July 26, 1991 a
copy of the "Notice to Tenant of Commencement of Proceeding to
Consider the Owner's Application for a Rent Increase Based on a
Major Capital Improvement"; and that the tenants' allegation that
a violation exists for the boiler is unsubstantiated and not true.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be
remanded to the Administrator for further processing.
It appears from the record in the instant case that the tenants in
the subject premises were not served with a copy of the owner's MCI
application. No answers were filed by the tenants regarding the
application. While the file includes a copy of the "Notice to
Tenant of Commencement of Proceeding to Consider the Owner's
Application for a Rent Increase", there is no comfirmation in the
record that said notices with attachments were actually mailed to
the tenants. Furthermore, the copies of RA-79 forms (owner's MCI
application) and labels sent to the DHCR by the owner are in the
Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it appropriated to remand this
proceeding to the Rent Administrator to effectuate service upon the
tenants for such further processing as may be deemed necessary.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted
to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the District Rent
Administrator for further processing in accordance with this Order
and Opinion. The Order of the Rent Administrator remains in full
force and effect until a new order is issue upon the remand.
JOSEPH A. D' AGOSTA