EB 430317 RO

                                  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     S.J.R. NO.:  5681
          IN THE MATTER OF  THE  ADMINISTRATIVE      ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EB 430317 RO

          M & N RACOLIN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NOS.: BK 422806 BR
                                                                   CL 420033 BT
                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On February 26, 1990 the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          February 2, 1990 by the Director of the Maximum Base  Rent  (MBR)
          Unit, 92-31 Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York  concerning
          housing accommodations known as 231 East 76th Street,  New  York,
          New York, various accommodations.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the  Civil  Practice  Law
          and Rules requesting  that  the  Court  direct  the  Division  to
          expeditiously determine the petitioner's  administrative  appeal.
          The proceeding was  remanded  to  the  Division  of  Housing  and
          Community   Renewal   (DHCR)   by   Court   Order   for   further
          consideration.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          On  November  14,  1988,  the  Director  issued   an   Order   of
          Eligibility establishing  1988-89  Maximum  Base  Rents  for  the
          subject building.  (Docket No. BK 422806 BR.)

          Subsequent thereto, various  tenants  filed  a  challenge  (first
          level administrative appeal) to the 1988-89 Order of  Eligibility
          alleging that certain violations had not been repaired.

          On February 2, 1990, the Director issued an order  revoking  said
          Order of Eligibility based on a finding  that  the  landlord  had
          failed to meet the violation certification requirements in  order
          to qualify for 1988-89 MBR increases (Docket No. CL 420033 BT.)

          In this petition,  the  owner  contends  in  substance  that  its
          violation  certification   was   proper,   that   its   violation
          certification  contained  a  request  for   waiver   of   certain
          violations which were tenant induced  and  other  violations  for






          EB 430317 RO
          which tenants refused to allow access for repairs, that all other 
          violations have been corrected, that it is entitled to credit for 
          violations which have  been  deemed  corrected  pursuant  to  the
          Housing Maintenance  Code  and  that  the  DHCR's  reliance  upon
          unsubstantiated records of violations causes irreparable harm and 
          unfair prejudice in that owners have no  opportunity  to  contest
          the existence of violations prior to issuance of MBR orders.

          In response, the tenant residing in apartment 7C asserts that she 
          always provided the owner access to  make  repairs.   The  tenant
          further  asserts  that  the  owner  has  suppressed  evidence  of
          plumbing violations  in  order  to  obtain  MBR  increases,  that
          although the plumbing violations do not appear in the  Office  of
          Code Enforcement list of pending violations they  appear  in  the
          New York City Department of Buildings report of  violation,  they
          are the subject of a pending  court  action  and  they  are  rent
          impairing violations which have been outstanding since 1980, that 
          the owner's failure to make repairs is in violation  of  a  court
          order and therefore, MBR increases granted to the owner should be 
          rescinded.

          In response the owner asserts that the allegations raised by  the
          tenant in apartment  7C  relate  to  alleged  individual  service
          problems in her apartment which do  not  relate  to  the  owner's
          entitlement to MBR increases for the 1988-89  cycle.   The  owner
          further asserts that it was forced to commence the  court  action
          in order to obtain access  to  the  tenant's  apartment  to  make
          repairs and that once access was obtained the repairs were made.

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

          Procedures established under the Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations
          provide, among  other  things,  that  no  rent  increase  may  be
          authorized  under  the  Maximum  Base  Rent  program   commencing
          January 1, 1988 unless the owner has  removed  all  of  the  rent
          impairing violations (as defined in the  multiple  dwelling  law,
          Section 302a) and at least  80%  of  all  other  (i.e.,  non-rent
          impairing) violations on record as of January  1,  1987,  or  six
          months  prior  to   the   filing   of   the   1988-89   Violation
          Certification, whichever is later.  If the owner  cannot  certify
          before December 1, 1987 that the requisite  number  of  violation
          have been cleared, corrected or abated,  the  owner  can  certify
          that it agrees to remove the requisite violations within 30  days
          of the filing of such certification.   In  this  proceeding,  the
          owner filed its Violation Certification on November 30,  1987  in
          which it agreed and certified that it  would  clear,  correct  or
          abate the requisite violations within 30 days.

          The record shows that on January 1, 1987 there were two (2)  rent
          impairing  violations  and  seventeen  (17)  non-rent   impairing
          violations pending against the subject building as follows:

          Item No.                      Violation Description

          Rent impairing:

          87   REPAIR THE ROOF SO THAT IT WILL NOT LEAK SOUTH WEST  AND
               SOUTH EAST ROOMS AND KITCHEN APT. 8C.






          EB 430317 RO

          98   REMOVE  ALL  OBSTRUCTIONS  AND  REPAIR  ALL  DEFECTS  IN
               WASTELINE OF WASHBASIN 7TH STY 2ND FROM  WEST  AT  FRONT
               APT. 7C.

          Non-rent impairing:

          85   ABATE THE NUISANCE CONSISTING OF WOOD FENCES  AND  GATES
               INSTALLED ROOF AT SOUTH AND NORTH.

          86   REMOVE THE ACCUMULATION OF  REFUSE  AND/OR  RUBBISH  AND
               MAINTAIN IN A CLEAN CONDITION THE EAST  COURT  AND  REAR
               YARD.

          88   ABATE THE NUISANCE CONSISTING OF TV ANTENNA ATTACHED  TO
               VENT PIPE ROOF EAST AT CENTER.

          89   ABATE  THE  NUISANCE  CONSISTING  OF  TREE  AT  DOOR  TO
               ELEVATOR SHAFT ROOF AT EAST DOOR.

          90   ABATE THE NUISANCE CONSISTING OF GRAVEL PILE ON ROOF  AT
               SOUTHEAST.

          91   FILE PLANS AND APPLICATION AND  LEGALIZE  THE  FOLLOWING
               ALTERATION OR RESTORE TO THE  LEGAL  CONDITION  EXISTING
               PRIOR TO  THE  MAKING  OR  SAID  ALTERATION  WOOD  FENCE
               ERECTED ON ROOF AT NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST.

          94   PROPERLY REPAIR WITH  SIMILAR  MATERIAL  THE  BROKEN  OR
               DEFECTIVE TILE WALL AT BATHTUB 7TH STY 2ND FROM WEST  AT
               FRONT APT. 7C.

          95   ABATE THE  NUISANCE  CONSISTING  OF  EXPOSED  ELECTRICAL
               WIRES WALL OF FOYER 7 STY 2ND FROM WEST  AT  FRONT  APT.
               7C.

          96   REPAIR THE BROKEN OR DEFECTIVE  PLASTERED  SURFACES  AND
               PAINT IN A UNIFORM COLOR WALL AND CEILING OF  FOYER  7TH
               STY 2ND FROM WEST AT FRONT APT. 7C.

          97   REPAIR THE BROKEN OR DEFECTIVE  PLASTERED  SURFACES  AND
               PAINT IN A UNIFORM COLOR WALL AND CEILING OF  FOYER  7TH
               STY 2ND FROM WEST AT FRONT APT. 7C.

          99   REPLACE WITH NEW THE MISSING  WINDOW  GLASS  FRONT  WEST
               ROOM 7TH STY 2ND FROM WEST AT FRONT APT. 7C.

          100  PAINT WITH LIGHT COLORED PAINT TO  THE  SATISFACTION  OF
               THIS DEPARTMENT CEILING PENTHOUSE B SOUTHWEST WALL.

          101  PAINT WITH LIGHT COLORED PAINT TO  THE  SATISFACTION  OF
               THIS DEPARTMENT PENTHOUSE B SOUTHWEST ROOM SOUTH WALL.

          102  REPAIR THE BROKEN OR DEFECTIVE  PLASTERED  SURFACES  AND
               PAINT IN A UNIFORM COLOR WALL  PENTHOUSE  STY  SOUTHWEST
               PENTHOUSE B AT TERRACE ENTRANCE.

          103  ABATE THE NUISANCE CONSISTING OF EXPOSED  ELECTRIC  WIRE
               PENTHOUSE B SOUTHEAST ROOM BELOW LIGHT SWITCH.






          EB 430317 RO

          104  REMOVE THE ACCUMULATION OF  REFUSE  AND/OR  RUBBISH  AND
               MAINTAIN IN A CLEAN CONDITION THE CANS WOOD AND  GARBAGE
               ROOF AT SOUTHEAST.

          105  ABATE THE NUISANCE CONSISTING  OF  DOUBLE  CYLINDER  KEY
               OPERATED LOCK 1 STY STREET TO VESTIBULE.

          In order to qualify for 1988-89  MBR  increases,  the  owner  was
          required to correct the two (2)  rent  impairing  violations  and
          fourteen (14) of the 17  non-rent  impairing  violations  pending
          against the building on January 1, 1987.

          On August 16 and 23, 1989 inspectors  from  the  Office  of  Code
          Enforcement  conducted  physical  inspections  of   the   subject
          premises and reported that six  (6)  of  the  non-rent  impairing
          violations (Item Nos. 86, 88, 89,  90,  104  and  105)  had  been
          cleared, that the two (2) rent impairing  violations  (Item  Nos.
          87 and 98) and eleven (11) of the non-rent  impairing  violations
          (Item Nos. 85, 91, 94, 95, 96. 97, 99, 100,  101,  102  and  103)
          had not been corrected or no access could  be  obtained  (in  the
          case of five of the eleven violations (94, 95, 96, 97 and 99) and 
          rent impairing violation 98.

          The record  shows  that  the  owner  submitted,  along  with  its
          Violation Certification, a request  for  the  waiver  of  certain
          violations.  The owner was subsequently requested by the Division 
          to submit documentary evidence in support of its waiver request.

          Regarding Item Nos. 85 and 91,  the  owner  asserted  that  these
          violations, involving wood fences  installed  on  the  roof,  are
          tenant induced, that the encumbrances were installed without  the
          owner's knowledge or permission and that  it  asked  the  tenants
          involved to remove same but they  refused.   The  owner  did  not
          submit any documentary evidence in support of  these  assertions.
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the evidence  of  record
          is not sufficient to warrant the waiver of Item Nos. 85 and 91.  

          Regarding Item Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97,  98  and  99,  all  involving
          violations in Apartment 7C, the owner asserted  that  the  tenant
          would not allow it access to  the  apartment  in  order  to  make
          repairs.  The record shows that the owner commenced a Civil Court 
          proceeding in November, 1987 for the purpose of obtaining  access
          to apartment 7C to make repairs.   However,  the  record  further
          shows that during the course of said proceeding,  the  owner  and
          tenant entered into a court ordered stipulation on April 5,  1988
          in which the owner agreed to make repairs and the  tenant  agreed
          to provide access.  In said stipulation the parties state:

               "It  is  further  agreed  that  by  entering  into  this
               stipulation neither side is admitting to any fault  with
               regard to its content, neither may this  stipulation  be
               used in any  manner  in  or  concerning  the  underlying
               case, nor is any inference to be drawn by the  execution
               of this stipulation."

          Subsequently during the course of said proceeding,  in  an  order
          issued by the Court on  April  25,  1989  on  the  issue  of  the
          entitlement to legal fees, the Court, in describing  the  history






          EB 430317 RO
          of the proceeding, stated the following in regard to  the  access
          issue:

               "Because landlord and tenant could not always agree  and
               because workmen were not  always  available  and  access
               was not always possible, the terms  of  the  stipulation
               took many more months to complete than was set forth  in
               the  paragraph  of  the   stipulation   which   required
               completion within sixty days.  The Court  finds  neither
               party responsible for any delay."

          In view of the fact that no finding of  fault  was  made  by  the
          Court regarding the failure to make repairs or provide access for 
          repairs and the parties stipulated  that  neither  was  admitting
          fault  in  the  matter,  the  Commissioner  finds   the   owner's
          contention raised on appeal that Item Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 
          99 should be waived because the tenant failed to  provide  access
          to be specious and that such waiver is not warranted.

          However, the record shows that the owner submitted  to  the  DHCR
          copies of invoices for work performed in Apartment 7C in June and 
          July 1988.  Further, the tenant submitted  a  copy  of  a  letter
          dated August 20, 1989 written to the Office of  Code  Enforcement
          in  which  she  indicates  that  all  items  except   the   basin
          obstruction (Item No. 98) had been removed.  Based  thereon,  the
          Commissioner finds that Item Nos. 94, 95, 96, 97 and 99 have  now
          been cleared for MBR purposes but were not cleared  on  a  timely
          basis for the  owner  to  have  been  eligible  for  1988-89  MBR
          increases.

          The owner asserts on appeal that the above mentioned court  order
          of April 25, 1989 indicates that all repairs in Apartment 7C were 
          made.   Although  the  owner   submitted   copies   of   invoices
          indicating, among other things, that work was performed to  clear
          the rent impairing washbasin obstruction (Item 98) in June,  1988
          the August 16 and 23, 1989 inspection report indicated  that  the
          inspectors were unable obtain access to Apartment  7C.   Further,
          the tenant contends in her answer to the petition that the  basin
          obstruction still exists.  Based thereon, the Commissioner  finds
          that the evidence of record is not sufficient to  establish  that
          Item No. 98 has been cleared.

          The owner contends on appeal that all other violations (Item Nos. 
          87, 100, 101, 102 and 103) have been corrected.  

          Regarding Item No. 87, a rent impairing  violation  concerning  a
          roof leak in Apartment 8C, the owner submitted, both below and on 
          appeal, a copy of an  invoice  dated  March  23,  1987  for  work
          performed on  the  roof  above  Apartment  8C.   The  inspections
          conducted on August 16  and  23,  1989  by  the  Office  of  Code
          Enforcement indicated that this violation had not  been  cleared.
          However, the owner submitted on appeal a  letter  dated  February
          13, 1990 from the tenant of Apartment  8C  in  which  the  tenant
          states:

               "In 1987 a  leak  occurred  in  my  apartment  from  the
               terrace above me.   The  landlord  fixed  the  leak  and
               repaired  my  apartment.   Subsequently,  a   new   leak
               occurred and the landlord repaired that  leak  as  well.






          EB 430317 RO
               My apartment as  of  this  date  does  not  require  any
               repairs or maintenance."


          Based thereon, the Commissioner finds that the owner had  cleared
          Item No. 87 for MBR purposes.

          Regarding Item Nos. 100, 101, 102, concerning  the  painting  and
          plastering of Penthouse  B,  the  record  shows  that  the  owner
          submitted to the DHCR copies  of  invoices  for  plastering  work
          performed in Penthouse B in September,  1989  and  a  copy  of  a
          letter dated July 15, 1990 from  the  tenant  who  states,  among
          other things, that "(t)he apartment (Penthouse B)  was  plastered
          and painted on the inside in September,  1989.   "Based  thereon,
          the Commissioner finds that Item Nos. 100, 101, and 102 have been 
          cleared for MBR purposes but were not cleared on a  timely  basis
          for the owner to have been eligible for 1988-89 MBR increases.

          Regarding Item No. 103, which concerns exposed electrical wire in 
          Penthouse B, there is no evidence in the record to indicate  that
          this violation has been cleared.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          above mentioned letter from the tenant of said apartment makes no 
          reference to the  removal  of  exposed  electrical  wire  in  the
          apartment.

          Regarding the owner's contention that it is  entitled  to  credit
          for violations which have been deemed corrected pursuant  to  the
          Housing Maintenance Code, the record shows that  on  October  10,
          1988 the owner was requested to submit evidence of such from  the
          Office of Code Enforcement.  The owner was  specifically  advised
          that acceptable evidence consisted of a report of search and/or a 
          violation status report (Form 106H) and/or  a  violations  deemed
          corrected report (Form 106D) and/or an  inspection  report  (Form
          1036).  The owner did not  submit  any  of  the  above  evidence.
          Accordingly, the owner is not entitled to credit  for  violations
          which it asserts have been deemed corrected.

          The record indicates that one (1) rent impairing violation  (Item
          No. 87) and six (6) non-rent impairing violations (Item Nos.  86,
          88, 89, 90, 104 and 105) on record against the  subject  building
          on January 1, 1987 have been cleared on a timely basis.  From the 
          record, it cannot be found that all rent impairing violations and 
          80% of all non-rent impairing violations pending as of January 1, 
          1987 were cleared, corrected or abated.  In addition,  the  owner
          has not submitted  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  that  any
          violation should have been waived.

          Based thereon, the Commissioner  finds  that  the  owner  is  not
          entitled to 1988-89 Maximum Base Rent increases.

          Regarding the owner's contention that it has  no  opportunity  to
          contest the existence of violations prior to issuance of the  MBR
          order, the Commissioner notes that the report of  the  Office  of
          Code Enforcement inspectors is of greater  probative  value  than
          the bare  allegations  of  the  owner  as  to  the  existence  of
          violations.   The  Commissioner  further  notes  that  under  MBR
          procedures the owner is provided the opportunity to  dispute  the
          existence of violations listed in the Office of Code  Enforcement
          inspection  report  and  to  submit  evidence  in  substantiation






          EB 430317 RO
          thereof.

          The Commissioner notes that the  tenant  occupying  Apartment  7C
          submitted an answer to the  owner's  petition  which  extensively
          discusses a plumbing violation listed in February,  1988  by  the
          Department of Buildings as follows:

               "Plumbing  fixture  vent  altered  without   permit   or
               inspection by this Department.

               "Remedy:  1)   engage  a  licit  registered
                              plumber   to   file   proper
                              permit.

                         2)     Plumber   to    make    all
                              necessary corrections.

                         3)    Plumber   to   arrange   for
                              inspection      by       this
                              Department."

          The tenant asserts that although this plumbing violation  appears
          only as a Department of Buildings violation and not in the Office 
          of Code Enforcement list of pending  violations,  it  is  a  rent
          impairing violation which has been outstanding since  1980  which
          remains  unresolved  and  which  is  related  to  the   washbasin
          obstruction and based  thereon,  MBR  increases  granted  to  the
          owner must be revoked.  The tenant indicates  that  the  plumbing
          condition has been made part of a pending  Supreme  Court  action
          which she has filed against the owner.

          While the Commissioner  acknowledges  the  fact  that  the  above
          mentioned plumbing condition (Altered plumbing fixture vent)  has
          been listed as a violation by the Department of Buildings, as the 
          tenant points out, this violation does  not  appear  among  those
          listed as pending against the  subject  building  on  January  1,
          1987.  As discussed above, established  procedures  provide  that
          1988-89 MBR increase may not be authorized unless the  owner  has
          cleared the requisite number of violations  on  record  with  the
          Office of Code Enforcement on January 1, 1987.  Accordingly,  the
          plumbing  violation   is   not   under   consideration   in   the
          determination  of  the  owner's  eligibility  for   1988-89   MBR
          increases.  The Commissioner makes no finding as to  whether,  as
          the tenant asserts, the washbasin  obstruction  is  part  of  the
          plumbing violation.  This order is issued  without  prejudice  to
          the tenant's right to file a decrease in rent based on a decrease 
          in service, if the facts warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction  Regulations,
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and the Director's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.



          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER






          EB 430317 RO
                                                  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