Docket No. DL 420066-RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
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
Gladys B. Schoscheim ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BK 421911-BR
Premises: 522 West End
New York, NY
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
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
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
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As for the tenant's contentions originally made in her answer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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Acting Deputy Commissioner