ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC520470RT
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. EC520470RT
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. DG420014BT
TOM ETTINGER,
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 26, 1990 the above-mentioned tenant filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on February 23, 1990
by the Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation
known as Apartment 11G, 420 Riverside Drive, New York, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petition for review.
The issue in this proceeding is whether the Administrator's
order granting the landlord maximum base rent (MBR) increases for
the 1988-1989 period was proper.
On May 19, 1989 the Administrator issued an order, under
Docket No. BL524050BR, determining that the subject landlord was
eligible for MBR increases for the 1988-1989 period, effective
January 1, 1988.
On June 2, 1989 the subject tenant filed a challenge of the
above-mentioned order.
In the order under review herein, the Administrator affirmed
the order issued under Docket No. BL524050BR, which granted the
landlord MBR increases for the 1988-1989 period.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC520470RT
In his petition the subject tenant asserts, among other
things, that the landlord has not removed the requisite number of
violations pending against the subject building to be eligible for
MBR increases for the 1988-1989 period; that there still exists a
rent-impairing violation pending against the subject building, and
that there has been a reduction of services in the subject
building.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the subject tenant's petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order under
review herein was based upon a finding that the subject landlord
had met the prescribed violation certification requirements, and
other applicable requirements to be eligible for MBR increases for
the 1988-1989 period effective as of January 1, 1988.
The record reflects that the subject landlord did in fact
remove the requisite number of violations to be eligible for the
MBR increases for the 1988-1989 period.
As the subject landlord has met the requirements for MBR
increases for the aforementioned biennial cycle, pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations,
the Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order under review
herein should not be disturbed.
The Commissioner further finds that the subject tenant does
not substantiate his allegation that the landlord is not
maintaining essential services as would warrant revocation of the
adjustments in the maximum base rents. However, the Commissioner
notes that this order is issued without prejudice to the right of
any tenant to file an application with the rent agency for a rent
reduction based on the landlord's failure to maintain services if
the facts so warrant.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenant's petition
should be denied.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation
Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby
is, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator be, and
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EC520470RT
the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
