ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO: GC630256RO, et al.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.: GC630256RO
: GB610456RT GC610441RT
IRA SUMKIN AND GC610442RT GC610443RT
VARIOUS TENANTS OF 2679 DECATUR GC610444RT
AVENUE, BRONX, NEW YORK PETITIONERS:
------------------------------------X RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CJ610195OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On various dates the above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenants
timely filed and/or refiled Petitions for Administrative Review against an
order issued on February 20, 1992 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union
Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known
as various apartments of 2679 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, New York.
These petitions are being consolidated for a uniform disposition since they
pertain to the same order and involve common issues of law and fact.
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.
This proceeding was commenced by the owner's filing of a major capital
improvement (MCI) application on October 31, 1988 based on the installation
of a boiler/burner, entrance and vestibule doors, a new roof, and new
windows at the subject premises at a total cost of $43,276.00.
On June 6, 1989, the 2679 Decatur Avenue Tenant Association submitted a
letter to the Division objecting to the owner's application and contending
in substance that: the room count was incorrectly listed as the subject
building contained 73 rooms, rather than 55; the cancelled checks submitted
for the boiler installation were actually payments for work done in another
building (375 East 209th Street) which the landlord owned and that a
contract for a boiler was never properly executed by the landlord; the
owner was a part-owner of the company (Gun Hill Management) that installed
the windows; there was no proof of payment for the cost ($5,400.00) of the
window installation done by Gun Hill Management; the cancelled checks for
the purchase of new windows included the cost of windows installed in
another building; and the owner did not fully substantiate the claimed cost
of $4800.00 for the roof installation. This letter was received by the
Division, but was never delivered to or considered by the Rent
On February 20, 1992, under Docket Number CJ610195OM, the Rent
Administrator granted the owner's MCI application.
In their petitions, the tenants contend that the Rent Administrator's order
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO: GC630256RO, et al.
is incorrect and resubmit their letter of June 6, 1989.
In response, the owner contends, in substance, that the boiler, roof and
window installations were fully documented to both the Division of Housing
and Community Renewal (DHCR) and the Department of Housing Preservation and
Development. The owner concedes that the room count should be changed from
55 to 73.
In its petition, the owner contends, in substance, that all of the
improvements were commenced before June 28, 1988, therefore there should
not have been any tax abatement offset adjustment.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding must be remanded to
the Rent Administrator for further processing.
The evidence of record in the instant case indicates that the tenants did
raise substantial objections to the owner's application while this
proceeding was pending before the Administrator, but that the Rent
Administrator failed to address those objections. Accordingly, the
Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand this proceeding to investigate
the tenants' allegations which were raised below.
Finally, with regard to the owner's assertion that all of the work was
commenced prior to June 28, 1988, the Commissioner notes that in the RA-79
Supplement I for the door installations, the date on which the work was
commenced is listed as "June 29, 1988", and the date on which the work was
completed is listed as "June 30, 1988". Furthermore, in the RA-79
Supplement I for the window installation, the date on which the work was
commenced is listed as November 23, 1988, and the date on which the work
was completed is listed as "December 3, 1988". However, both the owner's
MCI application (RA-79) and the owner's application for tax exemption/tax
abatement filed with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation
and Development indicate that the window installation was completed in
December 1987. Due to this unresolved factual inconsistency, the
Commissioner also deems it appropriate to remand this proceeding to the
Rent Administrator to determine the commencement dates for the door and
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 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 further
processing in accordance with this order and opinion. The automatic stay
of so much of the Rent Administrator's order as directed a retroactive rent
increase is hereby continued until a new order is issued upon remand.
However, the Administrator's determination as to a prospective rent
increase is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the Administrator
issues a new Order upon remand.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA