STATE OF NEW YORK 
                                OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. CA530361RO 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO. 7M09782M 
                       YOSEF YOSIFOVE,


               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.


                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             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