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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: GB530249RO
AMSTERDAM MEWS RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: EC510151OM
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On February 18, 1992, the above named petitioner-owner timely filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on
February 7, 1992 by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing
accommodations known as 501 West 184th Street, New York, New York, various
apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner was
not entitled to a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase.
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 this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced this proceeding on March 19, 1990, by filing an
application for a rent increase based on a total claimed cost of
$157,730.00 for the installation of the following items: new doors; new
apartment windows; repiping; elevator upgrading; pointing and waterproofing
and new intercom.
Three tenants responded to the owner's application objecting generally to
the MCI rent increase.
On February 7, 1992 the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review denying the owner's application based on the owner's failure to
submit evidence required for processing of same after two DHCR requests
dated December 10, 1991 and January 8, 1992.
In this petition the owner through his attorney contends, in substance,
that the Administrator's order was arbitrary and capricious in denying the
instant MCI application based on the owner's failure to respond to two
notices dated December 10, 1991 and January 8, 1992, only the latter notice
having been received and responded to with the requested documentation
satisfying the aforementioned two DHCR requests.
Various tenants responded to the owner's petition raising objections to
service related issues not related to the instant MCI installations
claiming that the improvements were forced on the owner by the City due to
the deteriorated conditions in the building, and providing photographs of
apartments 2-B and 4-E showing ceiling leaks and spaces between the floor
and walls where vermin could enter.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GB530249RO
The owner through his attorney responded to the tenants' responses, of
owner's stating in substance that their responses were duplicative and that
the service issues should be brought to the owner's attention first.
Moreover, the owner notes that the tenants' responses did not address the
instant issue regarding the owner's response to the DHCR notices.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded
to the Rent Administrator for further processing.
The evidence of record discloses that DHCR received documentation from the
owner on February 6, 1992 the same having then been forwarded to the MCI
Unit, on February 7, 1992, the date the order was issued, however through
clercial inadvertence the documentation did not reach the Administrator in
In view of the fact that the owner did respond and provided the requested
documentation for the December 10, 1991 and January 8, 1992 notices, the
Commissioner deems it appropriate to remand the matter for further
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' rights to file
services complaint if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is,
granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent
Administrator for further processing in accordance with this order and
opinion. The order and determination of the Rent Administrator remains in
full force and effect until a new order is issued on remand.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA