ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC230332RO


                                 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.: EC230332RO
           
               383-17 ASSOCIATES C/O              DISTRICT RENT
               PARKOFF MANAGEMENT                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: CG220018BT
                                                       (7M052023K)
                                   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 383 East 17th Street, various apartments, 
          New York, 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, CG220018BT was 
          issued on March 9, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator revoked 
          the finding of 7M05023K issued June 29, 1988, that the owner be 
          granted eligibility for a 1986/87 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.

               On appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator's 
          decision denying the owner eligibility is "arbitrary and 
          capricious" inasmuch as the Administrator did not inform the owner 
          which violations hadn't been cleared.

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
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC230332RO

               The proceeding under appeal herein was commenced when one of 
          the affected tenants challenged the Administrator's grant of 
          eligibility to the owner.  Upon consideration of evidence submitted 
          by the tenant at Challenge the Administrator revoked the earlier 
          decision and denied the owner eligibility.

               An examination of the record reveals that this evidence 
          consists of the report of an inspection of the subject premises 
          conducted on February 16, 1989 by the New York City Department of 
          Housing Preservation and Development (HPD).  The Commissioner notes 
          that the owner had the duty to clear two violations from the 
          subject premises in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the 
          subject premises for 1986/87.  The MBR inspection disclosed that 
          only one of the violations was cleared.

               The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that the 
          Administrator was correct in finding that the owner had failed to 
          remove the requisite number of violations from the subject premises 
          and in thus denying the owner eligibility.

               The Commissioner notes that in certifying to the Administrator 
          below to the clearance of violations at the subject premises the 
          owner was certifying to the clearance of specific violations 
          enumerated in the List of Pending Violations.  The Commissioner is 
          thus of the opinion that the owner, in certifying to the clearance 
          of violations was aware of the identity of those violations.

               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