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.: FL410476RT
APPEALS OF GA420133RT
PETITIONERS DOCKET NO.: DI430243OM
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
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
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA