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.:
                                                HL630001RT

          NEREIDA VEGA/ GEORGE NEGRON REP.      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                                DOCKET NO.:
                            PETITIONER,         CE630129OM
          ------------------------------------X
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named petitioner timely re-filed a petition for 
          adminstrative review of an order issued on September 17, 1993, by 
          the Rent Administrator, Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning 
          the housing accommodations known as various apartments, 2700 Marion 
          Avenue, Bronx, New York, wherein the owner's major capital 
          improvement (MCI) rent increase application was granted in part.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered taht portion of the record relevant to the 
          ssues raised by this petiiton.

          In her petition the tenant contends, in substance, that the 
          installatons were isntalled over five years ago, thus "the statute 
          of limitaitons has been exceeded"; and that her renewal lease did 
          not apprise her of the owner's pending MCI rent increase 
          application. 

          In response to the tenant's petition, the owner asserts taht the 
          petiitoner was properly notified of the proposed MCI rent icnrease 
          at the same time as all the other tenants of the building.

          After careful consideration of the entire record, the Commissioner 
          is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          At the outset the Commissioenr notes that agency records reveal 
          that at the time the instant application was filed, the petitioner 
          herein was in occupancy at the subject premises and was properly 
          notified twice of the owner's pending MCI rent increase application 
          by agency notices dated December 1, 1988 and January 13, 1993 which 
          were properly mailed to all of the tenants then in occupancy.  THe 
          petitioner was thus afforded an ample opportunity to respond to the 
          owner's pending MCI rent icnrease application prior to the issuance 
          of the order appealed from, but did not.

                                         (1)













          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HL630001RT

          Furthermore, the record confirms that the MCI application was 
          initially received by the Division on May 19, 1988, as evidenced by 
          the agency date stamp on the filed application; and that the 
          installation completion date, as indicated on the contractor;'s 
          certifications, is March 30, 1988.  Accordingly, the Commissioner 
          finds that the owner did file its MCI application within two years 
          after the completion of the installations as required by Section 
          2522.4(a)(8) of the Rent Staiblization Code.

          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. If the tenant owes the temporary retroactive portion of 
          the rent increase which was stayed by the filing of the Petition 
          for Administrative Review she may pay such portion of the 
          retroactive increase as may now be due and owing in a manner 
          consistent with the Administrator's order or in six (6) equal 
          monthly installments, which ever would result in the earlier 
          payment of such arrears as are now due and owing. Any portion of 
          the temporary retroactive increase which is not yet due and owing 
          as of the issuance date hereof remains subject to the 6% limitation 
          on collectibility.


          ISSUED:

                                               ---------------------------
                                               LULA M. ANDERSON
                                               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