ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH 430160 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.:               
                                                 EH 430160 RO    
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 DI 420237 BR               
              LEON S. POLL      
              C/O HELMSLEY-SPEAR, INC.                               
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On August 15, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          August 3, 1990 by the Director of the  Maximum  Base  Rent  (MBR)
          Unit, 92-31 Union Hall Street,  Jamaica,  NY  concerning  housing
          accommodations known as 7 Park  Avenue,  New  York,  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 August 3, 1990, the Director issued an Order denying  the
          establishment of 1990-91  Maximum  Base  Rents  for  the  subject
          building based on a finding that the owner  had  failed  to  meet
          violation certification requirements.

               In this petition, the owner contends  that  violations  have
          been cured and that he is awaiting dismissal of the violations.

               In response, various tenants allege, in substance, that rent 
          increases are not warranted.

               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, 1990 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,  1989  or  six
          months  prior  to   the   filing   of   the   1990-91   Violation






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH 430160 RO
          Certification, whichever is later.  If the owner  cannot  certify
          before July 1, 1989 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 June 9,  1989  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, 1989 there was  one  (1)
          rent impairing violation (Item No.  511)  and  twenty-eight  (28)
          non-rent impairing violations (Item  Nos.  446,  448,  450,  465,
          470,471, 472, 481, 483, 486, 499, 500, 501,  502,  503,504,  505,
          506, 507, 508, 509, 510,  512,  513,  514,  515,  516,  and  517)
          pending against the subject building.  In order  to  qualify  for
          1990-91 MBR increases, the owner was required to correct the  one
          (1) rent impairing violation and twenty-two (22) of t e  28  non-
          rent impairing violations pending against the building on January 
          1, 1989. 

               On August 16 and 23, 1989 inspectors from the Office of Code 
          Enforcement  conducted  physical  inspections  of   the   subject
          premises and reported that the one (1) rent  impairing  violation
          (Item  No.  511)  and  eleven  (11)  of  the  non-rent  impairing
          violations (Item Nos. 450, 470, 486, 499, 500, 502, 503,504, 505, 
          507 and 513) had been cleared, that one  (1)  non-rent  impairing
          violation (Item No. 446) had been cancelled and that sixteen (16) 
          of the non-rent impairing violations (Item Nos.  448,  465,  471,
          472, 481, 483, 501, 506, 508, 509, 510, 512, 514, 515, 516,  517)
          had not been corrected or no access could  be  obtained  (in  the
          case of five of the sixteen violations - Item Nos. 448, 465, 471, 
          472 and 483).

               From the record it  cannot  be  established  that  all  rent
          impairing violations and 80% of all non-rent impairing violations 
          pending against the subject building as of January 1,  1989  were
          cleared, corrected or abated.  The report of the Office  of  Code
          Enforcement inspectors is of greater  probative  value  than  the
          bare allegations of the landlord. 



               Based on the entire evidence  of  record,  the  Commissioner
          finds that the owner is not entitled to 1990-91 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:











          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH 430160 RO


                                                                        
                                          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