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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: FC130104RO
: FD130050RO
USEIN SULJOVIC
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER : DOCKET NO.: 130101OM
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 11, 1991 and April 5, 1991 the above named petitioner
owner timely filed petitions for administrative review (PARs)
against an order issued on March 4, 1991 by a Rent Administrator
(Gertz Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations known as 47-10
Laurel Hill Boulevard, Woodside, New York, various apartments,
wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was not
entitled to a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase.
The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these
identically worded duplicate petitions for disposition as they
pertain to the same order.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by these administrative appeals.
The owner commenced this proceeding on May 31, 1989 by filing an
application for a rent increase based on installations totalling
$322,677.08 for the following items: asbestos removal, intercom,
roof, waterproofing, rewiring, boiler/burner, windows, plumbing and
painting.
On March 4, 1991 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review, denying the owner's application on the grounds that a
building-wide rent reduction order under Docket No. EA1200017B was
in effect.
In these petitions the owner contends, in substance, that the
tenant in apartment 1-N, who initiated the building-wide service
complaint, has throughout his tenancy accused and harassed both him
and the tenants and as proof, a statement is submitted with
supporting tenants' signatures acknowledging the subject tenant's
behavior; and that it is unfair to deny its MCI application on the
basis of one tenant's allegations. Additionally, the owner submits
several photographs depicting current conditions within the subject
premises and a copy of its response dated January 22, 1990 which
was previously submitted during the rent reduction proceeding under
Docket No. EA120017B.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FC130104RO & FD130050RO
The tenants responding to the owner's PAR generally question the
accuracy and/or legitimacy of the rent increase. At least one
tenant endorses the owner's maintenance of the building.
After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner
is of the opinion that these petitions should be denied.
Section 2522.4(a)(13) of the Rent Stabilization Code and Policy
Statement 90-8 provide, in pertinent part, that the Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) shall not grant an owner's
application for a rent increase for the installation of an MCI, in
whole or in part, if it is determined by the DHCR prior to the
granting of approval to collect such increase that the owner is not
maintaining all required services of a building-wide nature.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that a rent
reduction order based on the owner's failure to maintain building-
wide services was issued on September 26, 1990 (Docket No.
EA120017B) during the pendency of the instant MCI application. The
order apprised the owner that he was required to restore the
services within 30 days and further that he could not collect any
rent increases until an order restoring the rent is issued. The
owner filed a petition for administrative review (Docket No.
EJ120030RO) appealing said reduction order which was denied on
March 7, 1991. Pursuant to owner's request for reconsideration of
Commissioner's order no legal basis was found for reopening the
administrative appeal determination and the owner was reminded of
his right to file a petition for judicial review pursuant to an
Article 78 under the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The owner did
not obtain judicial relief and did not file a rent restoration
application with the Division until July 31, 1991 (which
application under Docket No. EG120077OR) was granted on November 6,
1991.
In view of the fact that the owner failed to obtain a rent
restoration order in a timely manner having filed a rent
restoration application more than 10 months after the rent
restoration order was issued and more than five months after the
order appealed herein was issued the Commissioner finds in
accordance with the Code provision and established DHCR policy,
that the Administrator was correct in denying the owner's instant
MCI application and said order of the Administrator should be
affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, and the New York City Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these administrative appeals be, and the same hereby
are denied; and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|