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