Docket No. DL 420066-RT
                                    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   SJR #6547
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: DL 420066-RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
          Gladys B. Schoscheim                    ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: BK 421911-BR
                                                  Premises: 522 West End 
                                                            Ave., Apt.13A
                                                            New York, NY
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


              This Order and Opinion is issued pursuant to an order of the 
          Supreme Court, County of New York, Index Number 19309, Justice 
          Arber dated September 14, 1992, which ordered remit of an Article 
          78 Proceeding directing the Division to reconsider its "deemed 
          denial," upon which the court proceeding was based.

              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 above-named tenant filed a petition for administrative 
          review (PAR) against an Order of Eligibility granted to the owner 
          establishing the 1988-89 Maximum Base Rent (MBR) for the subject 
          premises.

              On appeal, the tenant alleges that the 1986-87 MBR was $499.45.  
          The tenant includes with her PAR a copy of the 1988-89 MBR 
          Computation Form, which indicates the 1986-87 MBR.  The tenant 
          further alleges that since the 1986-87 MBR is the stating  point 
          for the computation of the 1988-89 MBR, that latter amount is also 
          incorrect.

              The tenant attached to her PAR her answer to the owner's 
          request for a rent increase based upon a hardship, under the Docket 
          #BL 420004-OH.  The Commissioner notes that this proceeding is 
          separate and distinct from the instant proceeding.  In her answer, 
          the tenant states that she should not be subject to a rent increase 
          due to violations in her apartment (specifically, that the 
          apartment hasn't been pointed in "over ten years."), and because 












          Docket No. DL 420066-RT

          she is a senior citizen.

              The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

              An examination of the record reveals that the 1986-87 MBR was 
          recorded previously as $799.45 - not $499.45 as alleged by the 
          tenant at PAR.  Moreover, the tenant did not previously challenge 
          the $799.45 figure.

              As for the tenant's contentions originally made in her answer 
          under BL 420004-OH and incorporated  into and made part of the 
          instant PAR:  There is no evidence that the tenant applied for a 
          Senior Citizen's Rent Increase Exemption (SCRIE) with the 
          appropriate Agency of the City of New York.

              As for tenant's contentions at PAR that various violations and 
          service reductions bar the owner from an MBR rent increase.  The 
          tenant's contentions that "the landlord has not maintained the 
          services required by law" and "the alleged certified statements by 
          the landlord are not accurate" are too vague to be dealt with by 
          the Commissioner.  Tenant's more substantive claim "they have not 
          painted my apartment for over ten years" is undocumented.  The 
          Commissioner feels that the tenant should instead file a Complaint 
          of reduction in services, if the facts so warrant.

              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 
          Administrtor be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             Acting 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