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   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NOS.: GK410069RT,
          APPEALS OF                              GK420070RT,  GL430136RT,
                    Frank Mysto                   GL430032RT
                    Vera Palermo
                    Anthony Ruggiero
                    Hilda Russo
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS        DOCKET NO: FG430042OM
          ------------------------------------X

                  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 
          file.
           
          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.  

          ISSUED:


                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D' AGOSTA
                                                  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