ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB230141RO
                                 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.: EB230141RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
               PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT CO.        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
               c/o ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.        NO.: DD220019BO            
                                                  (BL226155BR)
           
                                   PETITIONER     PREMISES: 6735 Ridge       
                                                  Boulevard, various 
          ------------------------------------X   apartments, Brooklyn,
                                                  N.Y. 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations described above.

               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.

               The Administrator's order being appealed, DD220019BO was 
          issued on December 29, 1989.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of BL226155BR issued March 17, 1989,that the 
          owner be partially denied eligibility for a 1988/89 Maximum Base 
          Rent (MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure to meet the 
          violation certification requirements necessary to the owner's being 
          granted an MBR increase, namely, the requirement that the owner 
          file its Violation Certification (VC) and Operating and Maintenance 
          (O & M) Expense Certification with the Administrator on a timely 
          basis.  In the order being appealed herein, the Administrator found 
          that the owner had not filed its VC with the Administrator on a 
          timely basis.  The Administrator thus ruled that the Effective Date 
          of the owner's eligibility for a 1988/89 MBR increase be November 
          1, 1988, instead of January 1, 1988.  

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB230141RO

               On appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator erred in 
          changing The Effective Date of the order.  The owner concedes that 
          it filed the VC late (after January 1, 1988), but pleads mitigating 
          circumstances.  Ordinarily owners applying for an MBR are supplied 
          by the Administrator with a List of Pending Violations (LPV) 
          against the subject premises.  The LPV, by listing the outstanding 
          violations against the subject premises provides the owner with a 
          guide as to how many non rent impairing violations need to be 
          repaired in order for the owner to meet the requirements for 
          eligibility as set forth in Section 2202.3(h) of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations.  In the immediate case, the owner alleges on 
          appeal that it did not receive the LPV in time to timely file the 
          V.C.  The owner then submits a copy of its request for a LPV.  The 
          date stamp indicates that the request was received by the D.H.C.R. 
          on December 27, 1987.  The owner argues alternatively that if the 
          Commissioner decides that the VC was indeed filed late, then the 
          penalty should only be a 1-month rollback of the effective date 
          (i.e., to April 1, 1988), since the owner filed the VC within 1- 
          month of the new, March 1, 1988 deadline for filing announced by 
          the Administrator.

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

               The owner does not state the actual date on which it was 
          ostensibly served with the LPV of the subject building.  Nor does 
          it submit any documentary evidence as to any such receipt.  The 
          owner's argument concerning the actual effective date used in the 
          event of late filing of the VC is in error.  If information is 
          filed late before the Administrator, the effective date of the 
          owner's eligibility is six months after the date the information is 
          filed.  In the instant case, the owner filed the VC with the 
          Administrator on April 12, 1988, more than one month after the 
          March 1, 1988 extended filing deadline.  The Commissioner is of the 
          opinion, therefore, that the Administrator was correct in 
          establishing the effective date of the Order of Eligibility to 
          November 1, 1988.

               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 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB230141RO

          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:






                                                                             
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner