DHCR Decisions
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC220182RO
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.: EC220182RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
SHIRLEY KILSTEIN NO.: DB220004BT
(BK226476BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
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 known as 1320 Coney Island Avenue, Apts. 3C, 1D, 7D
and 8D, Brooklyn, N.Y.
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, DB220064BT was
issued on February 23, 1990. In that order, the Administrator
revoked the finding of BK226476BR, issued November 25, 1988, that
the owner be granted eligibility for a 1988/89 Maximum Base Rent
(MBR) increase, due to the owner's meeting the violation
certification requirements necessary to the owner's being granted
an MBR increase. Subsequent to one of the subject tenants' filing
a Challenge to the grant of eligibility, the Administrator found
that the owner had failed to certify to the clearance of the
minimum number of violations, and thus issued the order being
appealed herein.
On appeal, the owner states that she did certify the requisite
number of violations as cleared. She also contends that the tenant
who filed the Challenge is harassing her with unfounded claims of
service reductions. The owner contends that the tenant's denial of
access in a separate proceeding is evidence of the tenant's frame
of mind.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC220182RO
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
An examination of the record discloses that a List of Pending
Violations enumerated, inter alia 32 non rent-impairing violations
at the subject premises. Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the New
York City Rent and Eviction Regulations the owner was thus required
to certify to the clearance of at least 26 (32 X 80% = 25.6) of
those violations in order to receive eligibility to raise MBRs at
the subject premises for 1988/89.
Inspections conducted on September 5 and 12, 1989 by the New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)
disclosed that, even as of that late date (less than four months
before the end of the 1988/89 cycle) the owner had failed to clear
a sufficient number of violations from the premises in order to
gain eligibility.
The Commissioner notes that, of the various violations found
by the HPD inspection to be uncleared, none are in the apartment of
the tenant who filed the Challenge. The Commissioner further notes
that the two violations (one rent-impairing, one non-rent
impairing) located in that tenant's apartment are deemed by DHCR
policy and procedure as cleared (pending any future inspection),
due to the HPD inspector's lack of access. The Commissioner is
therefore of the opinion that the owner's argument on appeal
alleging possible denial of due process to the owner as a result
of one tenant's denial of access is irrelevant to the
Commissioner's finding in the instant proceeding.
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
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
|
|