STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EC420216RT
Susan M. Cohen ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 210 West 21 Street, New York, Apartment
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 tenant residing at the subject premises filed with the
Administrator a challenge to the order granting the owner
eligibility to raise Maximum Base Rents (MBRs) at the subject
premises for the 1988/89 cycle, said order issued on 10-7-88 under
docket #BL421579BR. Based on the tenants challenge, the
Administrator issued the order under review herein on February 9,
1990, under Docket #CL420050BT, in which order the Administrator
affirmed the owner's eligibility. In that order the Administrator
determined that the owner had certified to the timely clearance of
sufficient number of violations from the subject premises. The
Administrator also determined that the owner has met the prescribed
operating maintenance and essential services requirements in order
to qualify him for an effective date of 1-1-88.
In her PAR the tenant alleges that the order of eligibility was
Docket No. EC420216RT
not served on her, that the, notice of increase was not timely, and
that the Administrator's order did not specify its basis.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
denied. In the cycle in question MBR orders of eligibility were
served on tenants by this agency, rather than by the owner.
Despite the tenants contentions made on appeal an examination
of the records reveals that the owner submitted to D.H.C.R. a
Master Building Rent schedule (DHCR form RMB-92) within sixty (60)
days of the service of DHCR form RN-26's or RN=26 upon the affected
tenant's. The credible evidence of record indicates that the
required notice was timely served.
The record shows that the administrator was sufficiently
specific in stating the basis for the owner's eligibility for MBR
increases which was the owner's compliance with the requirements
for such eligibility.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of 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
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta