Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO
                                    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   S.J.R. NO. 7285
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS. HC420099RO  
                                                         and HD420007RO
                                                  DISTRICT RENT             
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
          TENTH CORNER B ASSOCIATES,              NOS. GD420003UC   
                                                  and  GD420004UC
                                    PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, 
          FILED UNDER DOCKET NO. HC420099RO; AND ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING 
          PROCEEDING TO THE RENT ADMINISTRATOR, FILED UNDER DOCKET NO. 
          HD420007RO

               On March 18, 1993, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
          administrative review, under Docket No. HC420099RO, of an order 
          issued on February 11, 1993 by the Rent Administrator concerning 
          various housing accommodations in the premises known as 343 East 
          10th Street, New York, New York.  Furthermore, on April 8, 1993 the 
          above-named owner filed a petition for administrative review, under 
          Docket No. HD420007RO, of an order issued on March 5, 1993 by the 
          Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommodations in the 
          premises known as 174 Avenue B, New York, New York.

               Subsequently, and after more than ninety days had elapsed from 
          the time it filed its petitions for administrative review, the 
          owner deemed the above-mentioned petitions as having been denied, 
          and sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of the State of New 
          York pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

               After considering the Article 78 petition, the  Court issued 
          an order remitting the petitions for administrative review to the 
          Division of Housing and Community Renewal (D.H.C.R.) for further 
          consideration.

               Since the petitions involve common questions of law and fact, 
          the Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the 
          proceedings for disposition herein.

               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 the administrative appeals.

               On April 6, 1992, the subject owner filed an application with 
          the rent agency seeking an order to exempt the subject premises 












          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          known as 343 East 10th Street, New York, New York from rent 
          regulations, based on alleged work constituting an alleged 
          substantial rehabilitation of the apartments in the subject 
          premises occurring on or after January 1, 1974.

               To its application the subject owner attached, among other 
          things, the following:

               1)   A copy of a "Work Permit" issued on November 
                    20, 1990 by the New York City Department of 
                    Buildings which described the work to be done 
                    on the subject building as follows: "Repair, 
                    patch, plaster & paint through the building.  
                    Replace wall and floor titles in toilets";

               2)   A copy of a "Work Permit" issued on March 20, 
                    1991 by the New York City Department of 
                    Buildings which described the work to be done 
                    on the subject building as follows: "Renovate 
                    entire building, erect new partitions, new 
                    flooring, ceiling and plumbing.  New C. of O. 
                    to be obtained as per plans filed herewith";

               3)   An alleged copy of the subject building's 
                    Certificate of Occupancy (The Commissioner 
                    notes that the above-mentioned item, submitted 
                    by the subject owner, does not contain the 
                    words "Certificate of  Occupancy"; that in the 
                    above-mentioned item it contains, among other 
                    things, an alleged list of alteration plans to 
                    the subject building, which notes that the 
                    most recent alteration plan was allegedly 
                    filed in June, 1969; and on the bottom of the 
                    above-mentioned item it notes that legal 
                    occupancy in the subject building commenced on 
                    September 26, 1910), and

               4)   Cut-up copies of the alleged building plans.
               
               On November 18, 1992, the Administrator  mailed to the subject 
          owner a notice which requested the following information:

               1)   A detailed description of the subject premises 
                    before and after the alleged alteration, which 
                    "must include the work actually performed by 
                    each contractor with proof of same (i.e. 
                    contracts, invoice, etc.)";

               2)   A copy of the subject building's past and 
                    present Certificate of Occupancy (C. of O.)

               3)   A copy of approved alteration plans and all 






          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          required permits;

               4)   Proof of the cost of the alterations; 

               5)   Proof that no tax abatement or governmental 
                    loans were used to finance the alteration;

               6)   The subject building's rent roll "indicating 
                    the names of each tenant, apartment number, 
                    date of first occupancy, amount of rent being 
                    paid, number of rooms and status of each 
                    apartment," and 

               7)   Any other pertinent information regarding the 
                    status of the subject building.

                    On January 25, 1993, the Administrator mailed to the 
          subject owner a final notice requesting, among other things, the 
          following items:

               1)   The subject building's rent roll which is to 
                    include the name of each current tenant; the 
                    tenant's initial date of occupancy; the 
                    monthly rent of each housing accommodation; 
                    the number of rooms in each housing 
                    accommodation, and the status of the housing 
                    accommodation,

               2)   Documentation of alterations in the subject 
                    premises, which should include copies of all 
                    contracts, invoices, cancelled checks, and the 
                    total cost of alterations;

               3)   "Copies of Certificates of Occupancy, past and 
                    present, (legible), for the subject building," 
                    and

               4)   Approved altered building application issued 
                    by the New York City Department of Buildings.

               The above-mentioned notice stated that: "Failure to submit the 
          information/evidence in its entirety may result in a determination 
          based solely on the information presently in the file."

               In its response, dated February 5, 1993, the subject owner 
          asserted, among other things, that it does not have to submit to 
          the Administrator the name of each tenant and their monthly rents; 
          that "no tax abatement was given for the subject premises," and 
          that the subject building should be exempt from rent regulations as 
          the alleged work constituted a substantial rehabilitation.

               To its response the subject owner attached, among other 












          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          things, the following:

               1)   A paper which is entitled "Rent Roll," which 
                    lists the apartments on each floor, the number 
                    of rooms and bedrooms in each apartment, lists 
                    the date of initial occupancy for each 
                    apartment as "post 1991 rehab," lists the 
                    status of each apartment as occupied, and it 
                    states that "the entire building was vacant 
                    when the owner did its rehabilitation";

               2)   A copy of a "Certificate of Electrical 
                    Inspection," dated June 10, 1992, issued by 
                    the Department of Buildings;

               3)   Copies of job proposals prepared by various 
                    contractors and invoices pertaining to the 
                    alleged work to the subject building, and

               4)   A copy of a bill submitted to the landlord for 
                    the service of filing" amendment" and 
                    "controlled inspections" with the Department 
                    of Buildings.

               In the order under review herein, issued under Docket No. 
          GD420003UC, the Administrator determined that the "scope and extent 
          of work performed does not constitute a substantial rehabilitation 
          of the subject premises," and that the subject owner's application 
          should be denied.  The Administrator directed the subject owner to 
          register each apartment in the subject building pursuant to the 
          applicable rent regulations.

               In its petition the subject owner asserts, among other things, 
          that the subject owner "completed a gut rehabilitation on a 
          completely vacant building"; that the Administrator did not define 
          what constitutes a "substantial rehabilitation"; that the 
          Administrator did not state why the owner's work does not 
          constitute a "substantial rehabilitation" to the building; that the 
          owner "completely reconfigured the apartments, adding space that 
          was taken in from the hallways"; that, the owner asserts, in the 
          subject building new electrical and plumbing work were done, and 
          also work to the beans and floor support; that the rent agency 
          ignored the evidence submitted by the owner which shows "a gut 
          rehabilitation of a vacant building," and that, the owner asserts, 
          the Administrator's order should be reversed.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the 
          petition for administrative review, filed under Docket No. 
          HC420099RO, should be denied.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence submitted by 
          the subject owner in this proceeding pertaining to the alleged 






          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          "substantial rehabilitation" of the subject building.

               The Commissioner points out that the Administrator directed 
          the subject owner, in notices dated November 18, 1992 and January 
          25, 1993, to submit to the rent agency copies of the subject 
          building's past and present C. of O.

               The Commissioner notes that the alleged C. of O. submitted by 
          the subject owner does not contain the words "Certificate of 
          Occupancy," nor does it contain any reference to alterations done 
          to the subject building on or after January 1, 1974.

               The Commissioner points out that the aforementioned "Work 
          Permit," issued by the Department of Buildings on March 20, 1991, 
          directed the subject owner to obtain a new C. of O. pursuant to the 
          building plans filed by the subject owner.

               Based on the evidence, the Commissioner finds that the subject 
          owner did not submit a copy of a C. of O. for the subject building 
          in connection with the work alleged by the subject owner in this 
          proceeding.

               The Commissioner further finds that the alleged C. of O. 
          submitted by the owner, which may or may not be a copy of a 
          C. of O., has no probative value in this proceeding as the most 
          recent alteration plan that is listed in that alleged C. of O. was 
          filed in June, 1969, and that that alleged C. of O. does not 
          contain the words "Certificate of Occupancy."

               As the subject owner did not submit an C. of O. for the 
          subject building in connection with the alleged work done to the 
          subject building, the Commissioner finds that it is not necessary 
          to determine whether the alleged work constituted a substantial 
          rehabilitation to the subject building as the subject owner has not 
          met its burden of proof in showing that the subject housing 
          accommodations are habitable; that the alleged work was done in 
          compliance with the applicable municipal regulations, and that the 
          alleged work was completed.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's 
          order issued under Docket No. GD420003UC should not be disturbed.

               The Commissioner points out that the Administrator directed 
          the subject owner to submit a copy of an approved Altered Building 
          Application issued by the Department of Buildings.   Based on the 
          evidence, the Commissioner finds that the subject owner did not 
          submit to the rent agency a copy of the above-mentioned Altered 
          Building Application.

               The Commissioner further finds that the subject owner did not 
          submit a complete rent roll for the subject building.  In the rent 
          roll submitted by the subject owner, the Commissioner points out 












          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          that the subject owner did not provide the names of the subject 
          tenants, their monthly rents, and the dates of their initial 
          occupancy.

               As the subject owner did not fully comply with the 
          aforementioned Administrator's notices which directed the owner to 
          submit additional evidence to the rent agency, the Commissioner 
          finds that the subject owner's petition, filed under Docket No. 
          HC420099RO, should be denied.

               The record reflects that the subject owner did not provide the 
          names of the subject tenants to the rent agency in the proceeding 
          before the Administrator, and in its petition for administrative 
          review.

               In order to ensure due process for all of the necessary 
          parties in this proceeding, the Commissioner finds that the subject 
          owner is required to provide the names of all of the subject 
          tenants so that the rent agency can properly serve all of the 
          tenants who might be affected by this proceeding, and to give all 
          of the subject tenants an opportunity to submit a response to the 
          issues raised by the owner.

               Pursuant to Operational Bulletin 84-1, the Commissioner finds 
          that the subject owner is required to state the names and mailing 
          addresses of all parties affected by the Administrator's order 
          under review.

               Even if the subject owner had met its burden of proof in 
          showing that the alleged work constituted a substantial 
          rehabilitation, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's 
          application would have been dismissed for not providing the rent 
          agency the names of the necessary parties in this proceeding, i.e., 
          the subject tenants.

               On April 6, 1992, the subject owner filed an application with 
          the rent agency to exempt the subject premises known as 174 Avenue 
          B, New York, New York from rent regulations, based on alleged work 
          constituting an alleged substantial rehabilitation of the 
          apartments in the subject premises occurring on or January 1, 1974.

               On February 19, 1993, the Administrator mailed a notice to the 
          subject owner directing it to submit to the rent agency, within 
          twenty days of the above-mentioned date, the following:

               1)   A detailed description of the subject premises 
                    before and after the alleged alterations, 
                    which must include the work actually performed 
                    by each contractor and proof that such work 
                    was done;

               2)   "A copy of past Certificate of Occupancy 






          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

          (prior to May 31, 1968)";

               3)   A copy of approved alteration plans, and all 
                    required permits;

               4)   Proof of the cost of the alteration;

               5)   Proof that no tax abatement or governmental 
                    loans were used to finance the alteration;

               6)   "Rent roll for the building indicating the 
                    names of each tenant, apartment number, date 
                    of first occupancy, amount of rent being paid, 
                    number of rooms and status of each apartment," 
                    and

               7)   Any other pertinent information regarding the 
                    status of the subject premises.

               In the order under review herein, issued on March 5, 1993 
          under Docket No. GD420004UC, the Administrator determined that "the 
          scope and extent of work performed does not constitute a 
          substantial rehabilitation of the subject premises," and that the 
          subject owner's application should be denied.  The Administrator 
          directed the subject owner to register each apartment in the 
          subject building pursuant to the applicable rent regulations.

               In its petition, filed under Docket No. HD420007RO, the 
          subject owner alleges, among other things, that the Administrator's 
          notice which was mailed on February 19, 1993 provided that the 
          subject owner had twenty days from the above-mentioned date to 
          submit to the rent agency the additional information as requested 
          in the above-mentioned notice; that the Administrator's order under 
          review herein was issued on March 5, 1993; that the above-mentioned 
          order was issued six days prior to the time the subject owner had 
          to respond to the aforementioned Administrator's notice; that the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order prior to the time the owner 
          had to submit additional information was an irregularity in a vital 
          matter.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the 
          owner's petition, filed under Docket No. HD420007RO, should be 
          granted to the extent of remanding the proceeding to the Rent 
          Administrator for further processing.

               The Commissioner points out that on February 19, 1993 the 
          Administrator mailed to the owner a notice directing it to submit 
          additional information to the rent agency within twenty days of the 
          above-mentioned date.  The Commissioner further points out that the 
          Administrator issued the order under review herein, under Docket 
          No. GD420004UC, prior to the time the subject owner had to respond 
          to the above-mentioned notice.












          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO


               The Commissioner finds that the issuance of the 
          Administrator's order, issued under Docket No. GD420004UC, prior to 
          the time the subject owner had to respond to the aforementioned 
          Administrator's notice constituted an irregularity in a vital 
          matter; and that the Commissioner further finds that the subject 
          owner was denied due process as it was not given a sufficient 
          opportunity to submit to the rent agency the additional information 
          which was requested in the aforementioned Administrator's notice.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the proceeding 
          pertaining to the premises known as 174 Avenue B, New York, New 
          York should be remanded to the Rent Administrator for further 
          processing; to give the subject owner an opportunity to submit to 
          the rent agency additional information as requested in the 
          aforementioned Administrator's notice, dated February 19, 1993, and 
          for the issuance of a new order determining the subject owner's 
          application to exempt the above-mentioned premises from rent 
          regulations.

               Based on the record, the Commissioner finds that in the 
          proceeding under Docket No. GD420004UC, the Administrator 
          inadvertently did not direct the subject owner to submit a copy of 
          the subject building's current C. of O. to the rent agency.  The 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator should direct 
          the subject owner to submit a copy of the subject building's 
          current C. of O. to the rent agency in the remand proceeding.

               If the subject owner does not submit a copy of the subject 
          building's current C. of O. which was issued by the Department of 
          Buildings in connection with the alleged work to the subject 
          building in this proceeding, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the Administrator in the remand proceeding should issue an 
          order denying the subject owner's aforementioned application.

               Based on the evidence, the Commissioner points out that the 
          subject owner did not provide the names of the subject tenants in 
          the proceeding before the Administrator, and in its petition for 
          administrative review.

               To ensure due process, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the Administrator should direct the subject owner to provide the 
          names of the subject tenants in the remand proceeding so that all 
          necessary parties have notice of the proceeding, and that all 
          necessary parties have an opportunity to respond to the issues 
          raised in the proceeding.

               If the subject owner does not provide the names of the subject 
          tenants to the rent agency in the remand proceeding, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator should 
          dismiss the subject owner's application.







          Docket Nos. HC420099RO and HD420007RO

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is

               ORDERED, that the subject owner's petition, filed under Docket 
          No. HC420099RO, be, and the same hereby is, denied, and that the 
          Administrator's order, issued under Docket No. GD420003UC, be, and 
          the same hereby is, affirmed; and it is

               FURTHER ORDERED, that the subject owner's petition, filed 
          under Docket No. HD420007RO, 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 Administrator's order issued under Docket No. GD420004UC 
          remains in full force and effect until a new order is issued upon 
          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