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
|
