ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI420320RT

                                 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. BI420320RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
              LILLIAN M. BRUCE,                   NO. 7MBC00031M
                                                       (7M03358M)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On September 23, 1987, the above-named tenant filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on September 4, 1987 
          by the Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          Apartment 7-C, 231 East 76th Street, New York, New York.

               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 petition for administrative 
          review.

               The issue in this proceeding is whether the Administrator 
          properly granted the subject landlord maximum base rent (MBR) 
          increases for the 1986-1987 biennial cycle.

               On September 4, 1987 the Administrator issued the order under 
          review herein, under Docket No.7MBC00031M, granting the subject 
          landlord MBR increases for the 1986-1987 period, effective as of 
          January 1, 1986.

               In her petition the subject tenant asserts, among other 
          things, that the Administrator's order under review herein should 
          be revoked for the following reasons:

                    1) That the Administrator "failed to take into 
                       consideration the owner's failure to refute
                       the tenant's allegations of fraud and 
                       harasment (sic)";

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI420320RT

                    2) That the subject landlord "erroneously"
                       listed five "full-time unionized 
                       employees in order to obtain a 
                       substantial MBR increase in 1972";
                    3) That the subject building service
                       employees consist of a superintendent,
                       and two doormen (one works from 3:00
                       P.M. to midnight and the other works 
                       from midnight to 8:00 A.M.);
                    4) That as there are three service 
                       employees employed in the subject
                       building the subject building should 
                       not be considered as a "High Payroll
                       Building," as listed in the landlord's
                       "Operation and Maintenance and Essential
                       Services Certification" form, but rather
                       should be considered as a "Normal Payroll
                       Building";
                    5) That in 1972 the subject landlord submitted
                       to the rent agency a room count of 239, but
                       "pursuant to an inspection by HPD, the room          
                       count was reduced to 175," and as such there
                       should have been a reduction in the MBR and 
                       the apartment's maximum rent, and 
                    6) That in a prior order issued by the Civil 
                       Court-County of New York, the court determined       
                       that the subject landlord was harassing the 
                       subject tenant.

               Subsequently to the filing of her petition, the subject tenant 
          submitted to the rent agency voluminous submissions pertaining to, 
          among other things, alleged plumbing violations in the subject 
          apartment.  The earliest plumbing violation that is being alleged 
          by the tenant was reported to the Department of Housing 
          Preservation and Development (HPD) on March 12, 1986.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the subject tenant's petition should be denied.

               The record reflects that the Administrator's order under 
          review herein was based upon a finding that the subject landlord 
          had met the violation certification requirements, and other 
          requirements for eligibility for an MBR increase for the 1986-1987 
          period.






               Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, to be eligible for an MBR increase for the 1986-1987 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI420320RT

          period effective as of January 1, 1986, based on the prescribed 
          violation certification requirements, the landlord had to remove 
          all of the "rent impairing violations" which were on record as of 
          January 1, 1985 and had removed eighty percent of all other 
          violations which were on record January 1, 1985 at least six months 
          prior to January 1, 1986.

               The record reflects that the subject landlord did in fact 
          remove the required number of violations to be eligible for the MBR 
          increases for the 1986-1987 period effective January 1, 1986.

               The Commissioner notes that the earliest date a plumbing 
          violation, as alleged by the subject tenant, was reported to HPD 
          was on March 12, 1986.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that 
          the "plumbing violations," as alleged by the subject tenant, has no 
          relevance in determining the subject landlord's eligibility for MBR 
          increases for the 1986-1987 period, as those violations were not on 
          record with HPD as of January 1, 1985, pursuant to the above- 
          mentioned Section 2202.3(h) of the City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations.

               The record further reflects that the subject landlord properly 
          filed the "Operation and Maintenance and Essential Services 
          Certification" form for the 1986-1987 biennial cycle.

               As to the subject tenant's allegation that the landlord should 
          not be eligible for MBR increases as, the tenant asserts, the 
          landlord has been engaging in a course of conduct constituting 
          harassment, the Commissioner notes that the rent agency's records 
          do not show any orders issued by the rent agency finding harassment 
          by the subject landlord.  The Commissioner further notes that for 
          a landlord to be denied MBR increases based upon a finding of 
          harassment, such a finding is to be made by the rent agency, 
          pursuant to the applicable rent regulations.

               As the rent agency has not issued any orders finding 
          harassment by the subject landlord, the Commissioner finds that the 
          subject tenant's assertion that the landlord is not eligible for   
          MBR increases due to a finding of harassment is without merit.

               The Commissioner notes, based on the record in this 
          proceeding, that the aforementioned court order cited in the 
          tenant's petition did not make a determination as to the landlord's 
          eligibility for MBR increases.




               As to the other issues raised in the subject tenant's 
          petition, the Commissioner finds that they are impermissible 
          collateral attacks on prior final determinations of the rent 
          agency, and as such are outside of the Commissioner's scope of 












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BI420320RT

          review in this proceeding.

               Even if the other issues raised by the subject tenant were 
          properly before the Commissioner, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the subject tenant does not raise any issues that 
          would warrant the revocation of the Administrator's order.

               The Commissioner notes that, based on the rent agency's 
          record, the subject building has been classified as a "High 
          Payroll" building since 1972.  If the subject tenant is alleging 
          that there has been a decrease in the number of employees employed 
          in the subject building, the Commissioner notes that the subject 
          tenant's remedy is to file an application with the rent agency for 
          a rent reduction due to a diminution of services.

               The Commissioner further notes, that on August 27, 1975 the 
          rent agency recalculated the subject building's MBR for the 1972- 
          1973 period, as it was determined that the subject building only 
          contained 175 rooms and not the 261 rooms that was registered with 
          the rent agency in 1972.  The recalculation reduced the subject 
          tenant's MBR for the 1972-1973 period from $258.23 per month to 
          $245.77 per month, taking into account that the subject apartment 
          contained two rooms.

               Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order should not be 
          disturbed.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is 

               ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby 
          is, denied, and that the Administrator's order 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