STATE OF NEW YORK 
                                OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: EC220182RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                   SHIRLEY KILSTEIN               NO.: DB220004BT


               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.


                                             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