ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO: GC630256RO,  et al.
                              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.: 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 
      Administrator.

      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 
      window installations.

      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.

      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