DHCR Decisions          Docket No. CB110159RO                                    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.: CB110159RO                                                              DISTRICT RENT          Philip Chin                             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET                                                  NO.: 7MBC00178Q(7M02645Q)                                             PETITIONER          ------------------------------------X            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW              The above-named owner filed a timely petition for          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing          accommodations know as 39-29 64th Street, Apartment 1F, Woodside,          New York.              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 before the Commissioner is whether the          Administrator's order was correct.              The Administrator's order being appealed, 7MBC00178Q was issued          on December 31, 1987.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed          the finding of 7M02645Q issued July 24, 1987, that the owner be          denied eligibility  for a 1986/87 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) increase,          due to the owner's failure to meet the violation certification          requirements necessary to the owner's being granted an MBR          Docket No. CB110159RO          increase.  The Administrator's order specifically cited three (3)          violations that were still outstanding against the subject          premises.              On appeal, the owner contends that these 3 violations have all          been cleared.  The owner presents as proof of this contention a New          York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)          report of an HPD inspection made of the subject premises on          November 30, 1987.  In that report, the violations are noted as          having been corrected.  In addition the owner submits proof that          the three violations were not inspected on February 1, 1987.  The          owner also argues on appeal that although he took possession of the          premises in December 1986 and notified the D.H.C.R. of the change          in ownership shortly afterward, the D.H.C.R. continued to          correspond with the former owner in the proceeding under review          herein.  The owner avers that he was thus ignorant of those          proceedings, and only learned of then when he contacted the          D.H.C.R. concerning another matter.  The owner concludes that it is          therefore unfair of the D.H.C.R. to require him to repair          violations he was unaware of until recently.              The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be          denied.              Pursuant to section 2202.3(h) of the Rent and Eviction          Regulations, to be eligible for an MBR increase an owner must have          repaired the requisite number of violations to the subject premises          by six months prior to the effective date (emphasis added).  An          examination of the aforementioned November 30, 1987 HPD inspection          report submitted by the owner on appeal to prove his contention          violations had been repaired reveals that all 3 outstanding          violations reported repaired by the owner had been previously            reported on December 19, 1986.  The effective date of the          Administrator's order being appealed herein is January 1st 1986.            Thus, violations must have been repaired by July 1, 1985.            Therefore, the owner's proof that the violations were removed by          November, 1987 is irrelevant as is the owner's assertion that the          three cited violations were not inspected on February 1, 1987.  The          Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the three violations were          not corrected in a timely manner and that the Administrator was          therefore correct in finding that the owner should not be eligible          for a 1986/87 MBR rent increase.              The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's allegation          of "unfairness" to him by the D.H.C.R. due to the change in          ownership cannot be sustained.  While it is true that the          Administrator failed to serve the July 24, 1987 order on the new          owner, the new owner was not prejudiced by that error since his          November 12, 1987 challenge of that order was deemed timely.  Thus          the current owner-petitioner was afforded the opportunity to          present evidence to contradict the Administrator's order.  For the          reasons stated above the Administrator correctly affirmed the July          Docket No. CB110159RO          24, 1987 order.              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