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
|
