ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BK110259RO
                                  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.: BK110259RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: 7MO61130(7MI06113Q)
            MARTIN GELFAND
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On November 20, 1987, the above-named former owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on October 
          16, 1987, by the Director, MBR unit concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as various apartments, at 63-50 Wetherole St., 
          Queens, 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 October 16, 1987 the Administrator issued the order under 
          review herein, under Docket No. 7MI06113Q, 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 former landlord asserts, among 
          other things that the owner had removed at least 80% of all 
          violations on record as of January 1, 1985.  The current owner has 
          adopted this petition as his own.

               The former owner further challenges the findings of the June 
          18, 1987 certification inspection.  The former owner had 31 non- 
          rent impairing and one rent impairing violation on record as of 
          January 1, 1985.

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BK110259RO

               The subject June 18, 1987 inspection found that the one rent 
          impairing violation was corrected as were nineteen (19) of the non- 
          rent impairing violations.  

               The former owner needed to cure 26 violations to achieve the 
          required 80% cure rate for MBR increase.

               The former owner in his PAR (adopted by the current owner) 
          contends that due to the delay in HPD inspecting the building, five 
          (5) violations reoccurred and the owner disputes the inspection's 
          finding at the continued existence of four (4) other violations.

               In his PAR the only documentary evidence the owner submitted 
          was a December 1987 bill from a construction co. for:

               a) laying new asphalt over the rear of the building
               b) installing 5 iron gratings with concrete curbing around    
                  each one with a one year guarantee on all work.

               The aforementioned bill would cover violations #308 and #311.

               None of the tenants answered the owner's petition for 
          Administrative Review, despite the agency filing a copy with each 
          affected tenant.

               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 
          thirty-one non-rent impairing violations pending against the 
          subject building.  The record further reflects that the 12 non rent 
          impairing 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 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BK110259RO

          to the applicable rent regulations, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator's order under review herein should not be disturbed.

               The owner in his PAR challenged the finding that four 
          violations # 308, 311, 321 and 324 were not cured.  Yet he only 
          submitted bills regarding two of the four violations and said bills 
          describe work with a one year guarantee done in December 1983.

               Further the agency gives great weight to the finding of the 
          independent HPD inspections.

               The owner's other contention that five violations reoccurred 
          due to the delay in reinspecting the building until June 1987 is 
          not persuasive.  Only one of the violations # 309 is covered by the 
          aforementioned December 1983 bill from concrete and grating work.  
          Further the owner concedes that one of the window well gratings was 
          stolen and not replaced.

               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 
          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