ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BA610098RT
                                 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.: BA610098RT
            JAMES McDERMOTT
                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: 7MBC00012(7MI01893) 
           
                                   PETITIONER                                
                                                                      
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations located at 1774 Eastburn Avenue, Apt. 3H, Bronx, 
          N.Y.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record 
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to 
          the issues raised by the petition.

               The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was 
          correct.

               The instant proceeding was commenced by the tenant's filing of 
          a Challenge to the Order of Eligibility granting the owner the 
          right to raise Maximum Base Rents (MBR) at the subject premises for 
          the period 1986/87.  The Administrator affirmed the Order of 
          Eligibility, finding that, contrary to the tenant's Challenge the 
          owner had made sufficient repairs to warrant the Violation 
          Certification for the subject premises.

               On appeal, the tenant generally reiterates the allegations he 
          made in his Challenge below.  The tenant alleges that the requisite 
          number of Rent Impairing and Non-Rent Impairing Violations were not 
          repaired by the owner.  the tenant then expands on this general 
          allegation by alleging various specific violations.  Among these 
          allegations are several concerning fuel supply to the subject 
          premises and the fuel costs charged to the tenant.  The tenant 
          requests that this proceeding be merged with a Fuel Cost Passalong 
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BA610098RT

          proceeding then pending.  (The tenant gives the docket number of 
          this proceeding as BC000002F).  The tenant further requests that 
          the D.H.C.R. subpoena the oil company's records.  In an allegation 
          unrelated to violations (and previously made by the tenant in his 
          Challenge), the tenant alleges that the Notice of Eligibility 
          served upon him by the owner, said Notice notifying the tenant that 
          the owner had been granted eligibility to raise the MBR, had not 
          been signed or dated by the owner.  The tenant alternatively 
          alleges that he had not been served with the Notice on a timely 
          basis, but that the owner "back-dated" the Notice when signing it.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied, and that the Administrator's order be affirmed as 
          modified.

               An examination of the record reveals that both the New York 
          City Department of Housing Preservation and Development Inspection 
          Report and the List of Pending Violations both report that the 
          requisite number of violations had been repaired, and that the 
          Administrator's order, which was issued on December 5, 1986 advised 
          the tenant to file a Service Complaint, if he felt that the owner 
          had not repaired the violations.  The tenant apparently followed 
          this advice because the tenant filed a service complaint with the 
          Administrator on January 7, 1987 under docket number BA620099S in 
          which he reiterated the specific violation allegations he has made 
          in the instant proceeding.  The Commissioner notes that, on August 
          20, 1987 the Administrator found for the tenant and ordered the 
          owner to restore services and reduce the tenant's rent by $5.00 per 
          month.  The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the tenant's 
          specific allegations concerning violations were disposed of by 
          Administrator's order BA620099S.

               As to the tenant's allegations on appeal concerning fuel cost.  
          An examination of the record reveals that the tenant has not 
          demonstrated sufficient similarity of issue in order to merge the 
          instant proceeding with the fuel cost passalong proceeding, as 
          requested by the tenant.  Moreover, an examination reveals that the 
          docket number cited by the tenant, (BC000002F) does not refer to 
          the instant tenant, or to the subject premises.  

               As to the tenant's allegations concerning the Notice of 
          Eligibility.  An examination of the record reveals that the tenant 
          enclosed a copy of the Notice with his appeal, and that this copy 
          was signed and dated by the owner.  A further examination of the 
          record reveals that the tenant made the identical allegation of 
          late service in his Challenge to the Order of Eligibility.  The 




          Commissioner notes that the Order of Eligibility was issued on July 
          17, 1986.  The owner then had 60 days (i.e., until September 15, 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BA610098RT

          1986) in which to serve the tenant with the aforesaid Notice.  If 
          the owner served the tenant with the Notice after September 15, 
          1986 the MBR increase would be collectible retroactively only.  The 
          tenant filed his Challenge (including the allegation of late 
          filing) on August 31, 1986-well within the 60-day limit.
           
               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          the same hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent 
          Administrator be and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          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