OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                               GE510383RT,   GE510384RT,
                    VARIOUS TENANTS OF             GE510397RT,   GE510400RT,
                    671 WEST 162ND STREET          GG410268RT,   GH510227RT,
                    NEW YORK, NY                   GH510228RT

                                                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:  EG530122OM



          Various tenants timely filed or re-filed petitions for 
          administrative review (PARs) against an order issued on May 13, 
          1992, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 671 West 162nd Street, New York, 
          New York, various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator 
          determined that the owner was entitled to a rent increase based on 
          various major capital improvements (MCIs).

          The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          petitions for disposition since they pertain to the same order and 
          involve common issues of law and fact.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on July 20, 1990 by initially 
          filing an application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent 
          increase predicated on the installation of various improvements at 
          a total cost of $151,860.00.

          The Rent Administrator's order appealed herein, granted in part, 
          the owner's application and authorized an increase based upon the 
          installation of new apartment windows, new roof and pointing and 
          waterproofing at a total approved cost of $146,160.00.  Disallowed 
          by the Administrator was the installation of concrete repairs upon 
          a finding that it did not constitute a major capital improvement.  
          Said order contains the notation that no relevant complaints 
          pertaining to the installations were made by the tenants.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants request reversal of the 
          Administrator's order and contend, in substance, that the windows 
          do not function properly; and that the roof was never repaired as 
          they still have leaks.  

          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NOS. GE-510372-RT ET. AL.

          The tenants further allege that no interest has been received on 
          her security deposit in the seventeen years that she has lived at 
          the subject premises (Apt. 24); that their apartments contain three 
          rooms and not four rooms as listed by the landlord (Apts. 25 and 
          28); that no new windows were installed in her apartment as she 
          still has the original  windows that were in place eleven years ago 
          when she moved in (Apt. 34); that they object to an increase which 
          remains for the life of the building (Apts. 28 and 64); and that 
          the owner's original request for an MCI increase was for windows 
          only, yet the Administrator's order also granted a new roof and 
          pointing/waterproofing.(Apt. 68).

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded to the Rent Administrator for further consideration as 
          provided hereinbelow.

          The record in the instant case discloses that at the time the 
          Division served the tenants with a copy of the owner's application 
          for a major capital improvement rent increase, said copy did not 
          include three of the installations (roof, pointing/waterproofing 
          and concrete repairs) listed on the owner's original application 
          but only listed windows at a cost of $63,360.00.  As such, due 
          process was not afforded to the tenants since they could have only 
          responded with objections to the window installation.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand this 
          proceeding to the Rent Administrator for such further processing as 
          may be necessary to re-serve the tenants with a correct copy of the 
          owner's application and to allow the tenants reasonable opportunity 
          to submit to the Rent Administrator any comments/evidence in 
          rebuttal thereto.

          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 administrative appeals be, and the same hereby 
          are, granted to the extent of remanding these proceedings to the 
          Rent Administrator for further consideration 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 the remand.  
          However, the Administrator's determination as to the prospective 
          rent increase is not stayed and shall remain in effect until the 
          Administrator issues a new order upon the remand.


                                                         Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                          2            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