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.: FL410476RT
          APPEALS OF                                           GA420133RT

                   VARIOUS TENANTS
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONERS         DOCKET NO.:  DI430243OM   
          ------------------------------------X
                  ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL

          The above-named tenants timely filed petitions for administrative review (PARs) 
          against an order issued on December 18, 1991 by the Rent Administrator (Gertz 
          Plaza) concerning the housing accommodations known as 410 West 36 Street, New 
          York, NY, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the 
          landlord was entitled to a rent increase based on major capital improvements.

          The Commissioner has carefully reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by these petitions for administrative 
          review.

          The landlord commenced this proceeding on September 6, 1989 by 
          initially filing an application for a major capital improvement 
          rent increase predicated on the installation of a new roof and the 
          pointing and waterproofing of the exposed exterior walls, at a 
          total claimed cost of $21,720.00.  In support of his application, 
          the landlord submitted copies of contracts and cancelled checks.

          No response to the landlord's application was received from any of 
          the tenants in the building.

          On December 18, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review finding that the installation of a new roof and the 
          pointing and waterproofing of the exposed exterior walls of the 
          building qualified as major capital improvements, determining that 
          the application complied with the relevant laws and regulations 
          based upon the supporting documentation submitted by the landlord 
          and allowing rent increases for both rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments based upon the approved cost of $21,720.00.


















          ADMIN. REVIEW  DOCKET NOS.   FL410476RT etal.



          In their petitions for administrative review, one tenant alleged, 
          under docket number FL410476RT, that she was never notified of the 
          landlord's application and that the order granting the major 
          capital improvement rent increase was the first notice she had 
          received concerning the application.

          In response to this tenant's allegation, the landlord contends, in 
          substance, that he had provided the DHCR with a list of tenants, 
          including the petitioner-tenant, along with his application for a 
          major capital improvement rent increase; that, to the best of his 
          knowledge, all tenants were notified by the DHCR of the said 
          application; and that the petitioner may have forgotten about the 
          DHCR's notification because of the great amount of time between the 
          filing of the application, April 1989, and the time the rent 
          increase was granted, January 1992.

          In the petition under docket number GA420133RT, another tenant 
          alleges, in substance, that he is a rent controlled tenant; that 
          the landlord has not repaired his apartment; that there are old 
          windows and a rotting sink in his apartment; and that his rent 
          should be lowered if he has to pay for the replacement of the old 
          windows and the rotting sink.

          The landlord responds to this tenant's claims by stating, in 
          substance, that the petitioner-tenant is one of the few remaining 
          rent controlled tenants in the building; that he pays a very low 
          rent; that no tenant objected to the increase when the application 
          was filed; that after the increase was granted by the DHCR, the 
          tenant, upon notification, immediately filed a PAR to avoid, or at 
          least stall, the payment of the increase; that a new wooden floor 
          was installed in the tenant's apartment in 1987; that the tenant's 
          claims of old windows and a rotting sink in his apartment are 
          false; and that these allegations are being made by the tenant with 
          the purpose of clouding the issue of a rent increase.

          In response to the landlord's answer, the tenant contends, in 
          substance, that he never received a notice concerning the owner's 
          application, hence no response was submitted by him; that if the 
          rent is increased, the landlord should provide the necessary 
          services; and that he would like the Division to send an inspector 
          to verify his claims with regards to the old windows and the 
          rotting sink.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the


                                        2


          ADMIN. REVIEW  DOCKET NOS.: FL410476RT etal.









          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further processing.

          A review of the record in the instant case reveals that an 
          incorrect mailing address was used when the tenants were being 
          served with a copy of the landlord's application, including all the 
          required supplements and supporting documentation.  Most of these 
          packages were returned to the DHCR by the US Postal Service.  The 
          Commissioner, therefore, finds that the tenants were not afforded 
          the opportunity to participate in the proceeding before the Rent 
          Administrator.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that due process 
          requires that this proceeding be remanded to the Rent Administrator 
          for the purpose of serving a copy of the landlord's application 
          upon all of the affected tenants and affording them an opportunity 
          to submit an answer.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, granted 
          to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent 
          Administrator for such further processing as is deemed necessary to 
          afford the tenants due process.  The Rent Administrator's order 
          shall remain in full force and effect until such time that a new 
          order is issued upon remand.  However, if the Rent Administrator's 
          order retroactively increases the rent and directed a payment of 
          monies between the parties, so much of the Rent Administrator's 
          order as directed such retroactive payment is hereby stayed until 
          a new order is issued upon 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