ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB410249/51RT
                                 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 NOS.: CB410249/51RT 
           HAROLD B. LEBOSKY, MARTIN GALETT, 
           ANNA NEUFELD                           DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: 7MBC00349M (7M03505M)
           
                                   PETITIONER              
            ----------------------------------X                              
                  

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                               AND MERGING PROCEEDINGS

               The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 308 East 79th Street, Apts. 15B, 8A & 11B, 
          New York, N.Y.

               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, 7MBVC00349M was 
          issued on December 2, 1987.  In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of 7M03505M issued June 26, 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 increase.

               In their appeals, the tenants allege jointly and severally 
          that the Administrator was incorrect in finding that the owner had 
          corrected sufficient violations to be found eligible for an MBR 
          increase.  The tenants allege that all defects weren't repaired, 
          and that the owner should thus not be eligible for an MBR increase 
          if there are outstanding violations at the subject premises.  The 

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB410249/51RT

          tenants additionally allege that since the owner had been denied a 
          1984/85 MBR, the owner should thus not now be allowed to raise 
          rents retroactively.  Based upon this latter allegation, the 
          tenants claim that they are being overcharged.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should 
          be denied, and that these proceedings should be merged.

               An examination of the record reveals that a New York City 
          Department of Housing Preservation and Development inspection 
          disclosed that a sufficient number of the violations had been 
          repaired so as to justify the Administrator in revoking its former 
          finding. The relevant regulations state that 80% of Non Rent 
          Impairing and 100% of Rent Impairing violations previously reported 
          must be corrected in order to allow an owner to receive eligibility 
          to make MBR increases.  It is thus entirely conceivable that the 
          MBRs of rent-controlled apartments in a building may be increased, 
          even if there are outstanding violations at that building.

               A further examination of the record reveals that the owner may 
          have, in some cases, raised the rent on particular apartments in 
          excess of the 7.5% maximum increase allowed in 1 calendar year.  
          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this fact does not affect 
          the Administrator's order under consideration herein.

               The Commissioner further notes that the tenants were provided 
          with notice of an opportunity to respond, in accordance with the 
          appropriate regulations at all stages of the proceedings and thus 
          were not denied due process.

               The tenants are hereby advised to ask the D.H.C.R. for a rent 
          update if there is any question as to the actual legal rent for the 
          affected apartments.  Once the legal rent has been established, the 
          tenant(s) may file a complaint of overcharge, if the facts so 
          warrant.  Alternatively, the tenants may sue the owner for recovery 
          of excess rent paid, in a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that, inasmuch as those 
          various appeals are of the identical Administrator's order and 
          differ only in minor detail, these proceedings should be merged.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is







               ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, 
          and the same hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CB410249/51RT

          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. It is also 
          ordered that these petitions for administrative review be, and the 
          same hereby are, merged.

          ISSUED:




                                                                     
                                        JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                        Deputy Commissioner