DHCR Decisions
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
|