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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: EC430474RO
           C/O ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.                                      
                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: DG420535BO

                                   UPON REOPENING

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 220 West 93rd 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, DG420535BO was 
          issued on February 23, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of BL423474BR issued June 22, 1989, that the 
          owner be 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, specifically that one rent impairing violation 
          (item # 190 per the records of the New York City Department of 
          Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)) had not been repaired.

               On appeal, the owner contended that item # 190 was repaired.  
          The owner submitted a report of an HPD inspection conducted on 
          November 16, 1989 in support of this contention.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC430474RO

               In an order issued on April 13, 1993 under Docket #DC430474RO, 
          the Commissioner denied the owner's appeal and affirmed the 
          Administrator's order.  The Commissioner found that the HPD report 
          submitted by the owner on appeal was dated November 1989, nearly 
          two years after the effective date of the order of eligibility, and 
          that the Administrator was thus correct in finding that the owner 
          had failed to certify that it had corrected 100% of rent impairing 
          violations outstanding at the subject premises.

               On May 18, 1993 the owner requested that the instant 
          proceeding be re-opened.  The owner based this request on its 
          contention that the one remaining rent impairing violation (#190) 
          did not represent a physical defect, but was of a procedural nature 
          (failure to notify the HPD of a change in building agent).  The 
          owner contended that a late repair (as noted above) would still 
          gain the owner eligibility, and that the Commissioner had 
          disregarded various documentation, such documentation consisting of 
          HPD Registration Applications (Applications).     

               The owner's request for reopening was granted on June 7, 1993.  

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

               The owner submitted on appeal an HPD inspection report 
          disclosing that violation #190 was "waived" by the HPD by November, 
          1989.  The Commissioner agrees with this conclusion, but is of the 
          opinion that the HPD inspection report is probative of nothing 

               The owner submitted with its request for reopening, and on 
          appeal, various Applications purportedly to support the owner's 
          contention on appeal that the HPD had been notified of the change 
          in building agent.  The Applications were signed by the new agents 
          and were notated with the date(s) upon which their agency began.
          The Commissioner notes that the Applications submitted with the 
          request are different than those submitted on appeal.  With its 
          request, the owner submitted the Applications of Gregg Carlovich 
          (signature dated November 8, 1984 and stamped "Change of Agent 
          August 28, 1985") Robin H. Winter (July 30, 1985 and August 20, 
          1985), Lloyd Hezekiah (April 7, 1986 and May 8, 1986), and Peter 
          Britz (March 31, 1987 and March 2, 1989).  On appeal the owner had 
          submitted the following Applications:  Diane Robson (December 22, 
          1988, unstamped and (March 22, 1990, unstamped).

               The Commissioner notes that the Applications submitted on 
          appeal, if accepted by the Commissioner were, at the most, 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC430474RO

          probative of Diane Robson's being named the owner's agent for the 
          subject premises on December 22, 1988 and/or March 22, 1990.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that these Applications were not 
          stamped.  The Applications submitted upon the owner's request for 
          reopening were however, stamped.  The Commissioner notes that the 
          Applications submitted by the owner with its request for reopening 
          were dated earlier than the Applications submitted on appeal.  

               Inasmuch as the owner's argument for reopening is based upon 
          evidence which was not available to the Commissioner upon appeal  
          or to the Administrator at challenge, and upon evidence which, 
          although available to the Commissioner on appeal is not probative 
          of the owner's contention the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the Administrator was correct in denying the owner eligibility to 
          increase the 1988/89 MBRs at the subject premises.

               The Commissioner additionally notes that upon the granting of 
          the owner's request for reopening, a thorough search of the file 
          was conducted for any information related to the reopening.  While 
          this search did not reveal any previously-unexamined evidence 
          indicating whether the owner had cleared Violation # 190, the 
          search did disclose the absence from the file of any evidence of a 
          timely filing by the owner of the Violation Certificate (VC).  The 
          grant of eligibility to raise MBRs is contingent upon the timely 
          filing of the VC.

               On June 15, 1993 the Commissioner sent a letter to the owner 
          at its address of record, requesting evidence of a timely filing of 
          the VC.  The leter explicitly advised the owner to respond to the 
          letter within 20 days.  As of the issue date of this order, no 
          reply has been received from the owner.

               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

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EC430474RO


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