ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CA530361RO
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. CA530361RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. 7M09782M
YOSEF YOSIFOVE,
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 6, 1988, the above-named landlord filed a petition
for administrative review of an order denying the landlord maximum
base rent (M.B.R.) increases issued on December 11, 1987 by a Rent
Administrator concerning various housing accommodations in the
premises known as 539 West 162nd Street, New York, 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 for review.
In the order under review herein, the Administrator
denied the landlord maximum base rent (M.B.R.) increases for the
1986-1987 period, based on the landlord's failure to timely remove
the requisite number of violations on record pursuant to the
applicable rent regulations.
In his petition the subject landlord asserts, among other
things, that various items listed on record with the New York
City's Department of Housing Preservation and Development (H.P.D.)
as rent violations were "complied with in the previous inspection,"
and that those items should be considered "as complied."
On February 18, 1988, the Administrator mailed to the subject
landlord a "Notice of Disposition of Application or Complaint." In
the notice the Administrator stated that:
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CA530361RO
We are returning your petition for
administrative review which was
received by this office...Challenges
to the MBR Order must be filed on
the enclosed forms RA94MBR. Please
return this notice with your
completed RA94MBR application within
33 days to ensure the MBR challenge
will be considered as a timely filing.
On June 21, 1994, the rent agency mailed to the subject
building's current registered owner a copy of the above-mentioned
petition for administrative review and a copy of the above-
mentioned "Notice of Disposition of Application or Complaint"; and,
in addition, a notice informing the owner that it had twenty days
from the above-mentioned date to submit a response to the rent
agency concerning the above-mentioned items.
The record reflects that the current registered owner did not
submit a response.
On July 15, 1994, the rent agency mailed to the subject
building's current registered owner a notice directing it to submit
to the rent agency a copy of the aforementioned inspection as noted
in the petition, within twenty days from the above-mentioned date.
The record reflects that the owner did not submit a response.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the
landlord's petition should be denied.
Even if the landlord's assertion in its petition were correct,
the Commissioner finds that the order under review herein still
would not be disturbed as the record reflects that on January 1,
1985 there were two rent impairing violations on record with the
H.P.D. pending against the subject building which were not timely
cured, pursuant to the applicable rent regulations. The
Commissioner notes that the landlord's petition does not mention
the two rent impairing violations.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the landlord's
petition should be denied.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. CA530361RO
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
