STATE OF NEW YORK
                       DIVISION OF HOUSING AN 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.: GH430001RO

            Louis Gottlieb                         RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.: EK410161OM
                                   PETITIONER 
          -----------------------------------X


                   ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL


          On July 31, 1992 the above-named petitioner-owner timely filed an 
          administrative appeal against an order issued on July 24, 1992, by 
          the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 56 West 82nd Street, 
          New York, New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator 
          denied the owner's major capital improvement (MCI) rent  increase
          application.

          The owner commenced  the  proceeding  below  by  filing  its  MCI
          application in November of 1990. In support of its application, the 
          owner submitted copies of the contracts, invoices, the contractors' 
          certifications, and cancelled checks.

          The Rent Administrator determined that the owner had failed to file 
          its application within two years from the completion date of  the
          installations  (new  roof,   gutters,   leaders,   pointing   and
          waterproofing), and that the window installation took twenty months 
          and was therefore considered a piece meal installation which  did
          not qualify as a MCI.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner states, in  substance,  that  the
          window installation was not performed in a piece-meal fashion; the 
          reason for the extended period of time was due to the non-standard 
          shapes of some of the windows which had  to  be  custom  made  by
          templates; the contractor had a great deal of difficulty and had to 
          replace many of the windows that had been made due to  errors  in
          fabrication which resulted in a great  deal  of  lost  time;  the
          contractor had difficulty in making appointments with the tenants 
          in order to complete the job; and the contract  was  modified  to
          reflect a credit due to the delays caused by the contractor. 


          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GH430001RO













          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  this  proceeding  must  be
          remanded for further processing.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator improperly based his 
          denial of the window portion of the owner's  application  on  the
          grounds that said window installation was done  in  a  piece-meal
          fashion.

          The Commissioner notes that several troubling inconsistencies and 
          alterations appear in the owner's application and in the supporting 
          documentation with regard to the total number of windows installed, 
          the total number of the windows in  the  building,  the  contract
          execution date, the commencement and completion dates of the window 
          installation, the  contract  price,  and  the  propriety  of  the
          contractor's certification. Accordingly, the  Commissioner  finds
          that this proceeding must be remanded for further investigation to 
          resolve the above-mentioned issues, and then to determine whether 
          the subject window installation was installed building-wide,  and
          whether said installation was completed within two years  of  the
          owner's filing of its MCI application.

          Finally, the Commissioner notes that the subject  premises  is  a
          cooperative. Therefore, the proceeding must also be  remanded  to
          determine the source of funding for the  window  installation  in
          relation to the cooperative corporation and sponsor.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, 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.



          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