ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ110333RO

                                 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.
                                                  BJ110333RO
                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO. 7MBC00105Q
            MIDWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,           (7M03118Q)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On October 9, 1987, the above-named landlord filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on September 4, 1987 
          by a District Rent Administrator concerning various housing 
          accommodations in the premises known as 37-30 74th Street, Jackson 
          Heights, 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 review.

               The issue in this proceeding is whether the Administrator 
          properly denied 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. 7MBC00105Q, denying the subject 
          landlord MBR increases for the 1986-1987 biennial cycle for failing 
          to meet the violation certification requirements.

               In its petition the subject landlord asserts, among other 
          things, that the subject landlord purchased the subject building in 
          the spring of 1984, "and to their knowledge have never received any 
          violations for the premises"; that the landlord has complied with 
          all of the applicable regulations to qualify for an MBR increase 
          for the 1986-1987 period, and that the landlord states that, "It 
          was arbitrary, irrational and a denial of substantial justice to 
          blanketly (sic) deny Petitioner's rights based upon one old 
          violation which was never revealed to the Petitioner."
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ110333RO

               To its petition the subject landlord attaches,among other 
          things, a copy of the landlord's "Violation Certification" form for 
          the 1986-1987 period, dated June 17, 1985.  

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

               Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, to be eligible for an MBR increase for the 1986-1987 
          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 with 
          the City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) 
          as of January 1, 1985 and had removed eighty percent of all other 
          violations which were on record with HPD at least six months prior 
          to January 1, 1986.

               The record reflects that on January 1, 1985 there was one 
          rent-impairing violation pending against the subject building, and 
          two non-rent impairing violations pending against the subject 
          building.  The record further reflects that the above-mentioned 
          violations were still pending against the subject building on the 
          issuance date of the Administrator's order under review herein.

               As the subject landlord did not clear the requisite number of 
          violations that were pending against the subject building pursuant 
          to the applicable rent regulations, the Commissioner finds that the  
          Administrator's order under review herein should not be disturbed.

               As to the subject landlord's allegation that it did not have 
          notice of the violations pending against the subject building, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this fact, if true, would not 
          warrant the revocation of the Administrator's order.

               The Commissioner notes that in the aforementioned "Violation 
          Certification" the subject landlord certified that, "under 
          penalties provided by Law...that all rent impairing and at least 
          80% of all other New York City Code Enforcement Violation that were 
          recorded against the subject premises, if any, on January 1, 1985 
          or six months prior to the Date of Filing, whichever is later, have 
          been cleared, corrected, or abated."

               Based on the above-mentioned "Violation Certification" form, 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the subject landlord should 
          have known of the existence of the pending violations.

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


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






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BJ110333RO

          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