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 5637)
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CK 630128-RO
:
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
PARKOFF BAINBRIDGE N0.: AK 630203-OM
ASSOC. PETITIONER :
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR
On November 21, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator issued
October 18, 1988. The order concerned housing accommodations located at
2705 Bainbridge Avenue, Bronx, New York. The Administrator denied
petitioner's application for a building-wide rent increase.
Thereafter the owner commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court pursuant
to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking an order of
the court directing the Division to determine its petition. This resulted
in remanding the proceeding to the Division for further consideration.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered that
portion relevant to the issues raised by this administrative appeal.
The owner commenced the proceeding on November 11, 1986, by filing an
application for a rent increase due to the installation of major capital
improvements, to wit-new roof, elevator, burner/boiler and windows. On
April 19, 1982 the owner certified that each tenant had been served with a
copy of the application and had been afforded an opportunity to respond
On October 15, 1987 the Administrator sent a notice to the petitioner
requesting the following additional data to process the application:
- signatures on the contractor's statement with dates of
completion
- the total square footage of the roof and the square footage of
the area replaced
- the total number of windows in the building and the number of
windows replaced. Balance of cancelled checks
- approvals for burner/boiler and additional cancelled checks
- cancelled checks and approval for elevator
DOCKET NUMBER: CK 630128-R0
On October 30, 1987 the petitioner requested an extension of time to
provide the information. That extension was granted and on December 11,
1987, the owner submitted copies of letters it had sent to the various
vendors demanding signatures and other information. Another request for
information was sent to the owner on April 15, 1988 in response to which
the owner
stated, on May 18, 1988 that it was ready, and willing, and able to comply
but had experienced a change in personnel and needed another extension of
time.
On October 18, 1988 the Administrator issued the order appealed herein
denying the application, citing the owner's failure to submit necessary
information and material.
In its petition the owner seeks reversal of the Administrator's order,
stating that when the application was filed in late November 1986; that
proper cancelled checks and bills were submitted; that service of the
application on the tenants was not completed until April 1987; that almost
seven months passed until the first notice was sent for production of the
additional information described above; and that personnel changes in
the owner's company forced a late response to the notice.
Petitioner argues that a review of the application by the Administrator
would have provided the necessary information regarding the number of
windows installed and the square footage of the replaced portion of the
roof; and that it experienced difficulty in obtaining the balance of the
material required by the Administrator from the contractor which delayed a
full and complete submission until June 28 and July 11, 1988. The owner
included with the petition copies of letters addressed to the
Administrator, dated June 28 and July 11, 1988, transmitting the requested
documents including cancelled checks, signed contractor's statements, and
all necessary approvals and permits. The owner also enclosed copies of
two receipts for certified mail sent to the Administrator on June 28 and
July 11, 1988.
After careful consideration of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be remanded to
the Administrator for further processing.
The owner has adequately established that it did comply with all the
Administrator's requests for information (some of which was indeed readily
available in the owner's application) well before the order was issued.
However, the submissions, made on June 28 and July 11, 1988 by certified
mail did not reach the appropriate file.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that this matter must be remanded to
the Administrator for such further processing as may be necessary of the
owner's application including consideration of the tenant's allegations
regarding the adequacy of the work performed, and, if warranted, ordering
appropriate rent increases for rent controlled and rent stabilized
tenants.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Code and the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
DOCKET NUMBER: CK 630128-R0
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted to the
extent of remanding this proceeding to the Rent Administrator for further
processing consistent with this order and opinion.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
