Docket No. ED430180RO
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.: ED430180RO
Whitefriars East for ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
24-26 Apts. Corporation NO.: DA420062BT(CA420462BR)
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 24 East 93rd Street, Apartments 1B, and 2B,
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.
The issue before the Commissioner is whether the
Administrator's order was correct.
A 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 December 23,
1988 under the Docket #CA420462BR. Based on the tenant's Challenge
the Administrator issued the order under review herein on April 6,
1990, under Docket #DA420062BT, in which order the Administrator
revoked the owner's eligibility. In that order the Administrator
determined that the owner had failed to certify to the timely
clearance of a sufficient number of violations from the subject
On appeal the owner contends that a sufficient number of
violations had been cleared from the subject premises. In support
of this the owner submits an Affidavit from a licensed architect,
in which Affidavit the architect states that he conducted an
inspection of the subject premises on November 15, 1988 and that in
the course of this inspection he discovered that a sufficient
number of violations were cleared from the subject premises so as
Docket No. ED430180RO
to gain for the owner eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
On September 14 and 21, 1989, the New York City Department of
Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) conducted an inspection
of the subject premises. This inspection revealed that the owner
had failed to clear a sufficient number of violations from the
subject premises in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the
subject premises for the 1988/89 cycle.
The Commissioner notes that the HPD inspection occurred
approximately ten months after the architect's inspection, and
noted various violations as "not cleared" which the previous
inspection has noted as "cleared". The Commissioner is of the
opinion that this discrepancy may be explained by the reoccurrence
of various violations, or by the repairs being done in an
In either case, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
later inspection is controlling in the instant proceeding.
The Commissioner notes that, on appeal the owner (in addition
to submitting the architect's Affidavit discussed above) states
that "The order states 'Failed to properly certify'". The owner
responds to this statement by averring that it has filed the
various Violation Certification (VC) documents on a timely basis.
An examination of the record reveals this statement to be true.
However, the owner's responsibility to certify to violation
clearance is more than a mere responsibility to file documents with
the Administrator. By certifying to the clearance of violations,
the owner, in addition to filing VCs with the Administrator must
actually clear those violations.
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
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta