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
    

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