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 SJR NO. 6998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: HA210155RO
GAYLE REALTY CORP
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: FJ210096OM
PETITIONER
-------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named petitioner-owner timely filed a petition for
administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on December 18,
1992, by the Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza) concerning the
housing accommodations known as 156 East 54th Street, Brooklyn, NY,
various apartments, wherein the Rent Administrator denied the
owner's application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent
increase. All of the apartments at the subject premises are rent
stabilized.
Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition in the Supreme
Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules
requesting that the "deemed denial" of it's Administrative Appeal
be annulled.
Pursuant to a stipulation of settlement, so ordered by the Court,
which was entered into by the petitioner and the Division on
September 24, 1993, the proceeding was remitted to the Division for
an expeditious determination of this Administrative Appeal.
The owner initiated this proceeding on October 24, 1991, by filing
an application for an MCI rent increase predicated on various
improvements performed at the subject premises at a total claimed
cost of $42,497.07. Said application was denied on the grounds
that the owner/applicant failed to file the application within two
years from the completion dates of the installations.
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. HA-210155-RO
In this petition for Administrative Review, the owner requests a
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order and contends, in
substance, that the owner did attempt to file a timely application
but was unable to do so by fault of the Division and E F Kennedy
Associates, an agency commissioned to complete such service; that
on June 20, 1986, the owner called the Division to inquire as to
the proper procedure required for an MCI application and a
representative of the Division misinformed the owner by stating
that despite the fact that the procedure requires filing such an
application within two years from the completion date of the
installation, such an application cannot be filed until the loan on
the installation is fully paid; that the owner was told that she
should therefore file the application on June 17, 1989, the date
the mortgage would be completely paid off; that on June 17, 1989,
the owner commissioned E F Kennedy Associates to file the MCI
application with the Division but inquires to the Division in June
1991 revealed that said application was never submitted; that
thereafter the owner personally submitted the MCI application to
the Division; and that the Administrator's order as it stands
illegally and unfairly penalizes the owner for the error of the
Division and the negligence of E F Kennedy Associates.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this Administrative Appeal
should be denied.
Regarding the owner's contention that the application was not filed
in a timely manner due to misinformation given by an employee of
the Division, the Commissioner finds that this unsubstantiated
allegation that the owner spoke to a representative of the
Division, who is unidentified, is both self serving and
inconclusive. Furthermore, the owner is charged with knowledge of
the law and may not rely on a claim of oral misinformation received
from any representative of the Division to evade the requirements
of the law.
2
ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. HA-210155-RO
With respect to the owner's contention that due to the negligence
of E F Kennedy Associates, the application was not filed in June
1989, the Commissioner notes that although the owner submitted
evidence (cancelled check for $600.00) that there was an
arrangement between herself and this entity, the Division's records
nonetheless disclose that there was no application filed in 1989
for the subject building. This matter is an issue between the
owner and E F Kennedy Associates and does not involve the Division.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied; and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is
affirmed.
ISSUED:
____________________
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
3
|