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.: GE510372RT,
APPEALS OF GE510383RT, GE510384RT,
VARIOUS TENANTS OF GE510397RT, GE510400RT,
671 WEST 162ND STREET GG410268RT, GH510227RT,
NEW YORK, NY GH510228RT
DOCKET NO.: EG530122OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
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
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
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
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