ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EE420281RO
                                  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.: EE420281RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: DG420413BO
              WYNDHAM REALTY                           BK425860BR
                                   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 516 East 80th Street, New York, N.Y. 10028.

               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 DG420413BO was issued 
          on April 20, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed the 
          finding of BK425860BR 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.

               On appeal, the owner contends, by his representatives 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.: EE420281RO

               An examination of the record discloses that a list of Pending 
          Violations enumerated, inter alia 12 Rent Impairing and 67 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 all rent impairing Violations and 80% of the non-Rent impairing 
          Violations (67 X 80% = 53.6) in order to receive eligibility to 
          raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1988/89.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner has not provided 
          sufficient evidence, neither on appeal nor below in support of 
          either of its contentions made on appeal.  Specifically, the 
          Commissioner finds that the owner has not provided any evidence 
          proving that it had repaired the rent impairing Violation prior to 
          its submission of the VC to the Administrator or that the HPD 
          inspection clearance was delayed.

               The Commissioner notes that the DHCR cannot be held 
          responsible for the actions of the HPD, which is an agency of the 
          City of New York.

               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:




                                                                            
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             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