Docket No. ED430180RO
                                    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 NO.: ED430180RO 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT             
          Whitefriars East for                    ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
          24-26 Apts. Corporation                 NO.: DA420062BT(CA420462BR)
           
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X


                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 
          premises.

              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 
          premises.

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

              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 
          unworkmanlike manner.

              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.

          ISSUED:



                                                                            
                                             Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                             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