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
      APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GB530249RO
                                          :  
                AMSTERDAM MEWS               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                             DOCKET NO.: EC510151OM
                               PETITIONER : 
      ------------------------------------X                             

                  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 
      time.

      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 
      consideration.

      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.

      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