ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC430229RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: EC430229RO
DENNIS NEIVENS C/O DISTRICT RENT
FINKELSTEIN BORAH, ET AL. ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 24-26 East 93rd Street, Apts., 2D, 8D, 9D,
10D, 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,DA420059BT was issued
on January 26, 1990. In that order, the Administrator modified the
finding of CA420462BR, issued December 23, 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. Under the
original terms of CA420462BR the owner was granted eligibility to
raise MBRs at both 24 and at 26 East 93rd Street, which are
adjoining buildings. A tenant residing at 26 East 93rd Street
filed the Challenge leading to the issuance of order under review
herein, in which Challenge he contested the Administrator's grant
of eligibility, inasmuch as it applied to 26 East 93rd Street. The
tenant argued at Challenge that both premises were completely
separate and had different Multiple Dwelling Registration (MDR)
numbers. As noted above, the Administrator agreed with the tenant
and, in the order being appealed herein modified the grant of
eligibility, restricting the owner's eligibility to raise MBRs to
24 East 93rd Street only.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC430229RO
On appeal the owner argues that the two premises are on one
tax lot and have common utilities and a common basement. As such,
they should be considered as one multiple unit dwelling.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should
An examination of the record confirms the tenant's allegations
made at Challenge that the two premises each have separate MDR
numbers. This fact was conceded by the owner on appeal. The
examination additionally disclosed that at each premise different
inspections by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation
and Development (HPD) disclosed different violations, which were
compiled in two different Lists of Pending Violations (LPVs).
This examination additionally discloses, however, evidence
confirming the owner's contentions made at appeal.
The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that the
information presented by both parties below is insufficient to
allow the Commissioner to determine whether the subject premises
compose two separate buildings (as maintained by the tenant below)
or one contiguous "range address" (as maintained by the owner) for
the purpose of MBR eligibility.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby is,
remanded to the Administrator.
On remand the Administrator is directed to determine whether
the subject premises compose two separate buildings or one dwelling
unit for the purpose of MBR eligibility. The Administrator is
directed to gather additional information from the parties to this
proceeding in pursuit of such a determination, such information
gathering to include hearings, if necessary.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA