ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC 120502 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 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EC 120502 RO  
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO.
                                                 DG 120462 RO
             Y.   ZEVZAL   REALTY   ASSOC.               (BL   122234    BR)
                                
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On March 2, 1990, the above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review  against  an  order  issued  on
          January 26, 1990, by the Director of the Maximum Base  Rent  (MBR)
          Unit, 92-31 Union Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  NY  concerning  housing
          accommodations known as 68-38 Yellowstone Blvd., Forest Hills, NY, 
          various accommodations.

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

               On June 22, 1989, the Director issued an order  under  Docket
          No. BL 122234 BR denying 1988-89 MBR  increases  for  the  subject
          building. 

               Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a challenge (first  level
          administrative appeal) against the June 22, 1989  order  alleging,
          in substance,  that  all  required  certifications  and  requested
          documentation had been  submitted  and  that  the  denial  of  MBR
          increases was arbitrary and capricious.

               On January 26, 1990, the Director issued the  order  appealed
          herein,  determining  that  the  owner  had  failed  to  meet  the
          violation certification requirements in order to qualify for 1988 
          89 MBR increases and affirming the order issued on June  22,  1989
          under Docket No. BL 122234 BR. 

               In this petition, the owner contends, in substance,  that  it
          had submitted proof of compliance  as  to  the  clearance  of  the
          violations, that certain violations (Item Nos. 201 and 206) should 
          be waived as recurring and that it had met all  other  MBR  filing
          requirements and therefore a 1988-89 Order of Eligibility with  an
          effective date of January 1, 1988 should be issued.  

               Two tenants submitted responses to the petition alleging,  in
          substance, that MBR increases are not warranted.


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






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC 120502 RO

               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
          that  the  requisite  number  of  violations  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 December 31, 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  was  one  (1)
          rent impairing violation (Item No. 213) and twenty-four (2 )  non-
          rent impairing violations (Item Nos. 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 
          196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206,  207,  208,
          2098, 210, 211, 212 and 214) pending against the subject building. 
          In order to qualify for  1988-89  MBR  increases,  the  owner  was
          required to correct the  one  (1)  rent  impairing  violation  and
          twenty (20) of the non-rent impairing violations  pending  against
          the building on January 1, 1987.

               On August 14 and 18, 1989, inspectors from the Office of Code 
          Enforcement conducted physical inspections of the subject premises 
          and reported that the one (1) rent impairing  violation  had  been
          cleared (Item No. 213), eighteen (18) of  the  non-rent  impairing
          violations (Item Nos. 190, 192, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203, 
          204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212 and 214) had  been  cleared
          or canceled and six (6) non-rent impairing violations  (Item  Nos.
          191, 193, 196, 198, 201 and 206) had not been  cleared,  corrected
          or abated.

               Regarding the owner's contention that Item Nos. 201 and  206,
          which  concern  various  broken  or  defective  concrete   balcony
          ceilings, should be waived, the Commissioner notes that the  owner
          contends that said items have been  repaired  previously  and  are
          therefore of  a  recurring  nature.   However,  the  fact  that  a
          violation is of a recurring nature is not  sufficient  to  warrant
          the waiver of said violations for MBR purposes.

               It is further noted that the  owner  submitted  a  statement,
          dated September 13, 1988,  from  an  architect  which  purportedly
          indicates that Item Nos. 201 and 206 were "cured".   However,  the
          physical inspections of the subject premises conducted  on  August
          14 and 18, 1989 revealed that these violations were still pending. 



               Regarding the owner's contention that it had submitted  proof
          during the proceeding below that  it  had  cleared  the  requisite
          number of violations, the  Commissioner  notes  that  said  proof,
          which  the  owner  resubmits  with  its  petition,   consists   of
          statements, dated January  17,  1989  and  signed  by  a  painting






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC 120502 RO
          contractor, the building superintendent and  the  managing  agent,
          which indicate, in substance, that all of the violations on record 
          as of January 1, 1987 had been "cured" as of  December  31,  1987.
          However,  the  physical  inspections  of  the   subject   premises
          conducted on August 14 and 18, 1989 revealed  that  one  (1)  rent
          impairing  violation  and   eighteen   (18)   non-rent   impairing
          violations pending  as  of  January  1,  1987  had  been  cleared,
          corrected or abated and  six  (6)  non-rent  impairing  violations
          pending as of January 1, 1987 had not been 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.

               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
                                          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