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   S.J.R. NO. 7108
                                                  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.:EH530290RO
          APPEAL OF

          Lamir Realty Associates                 RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO:BK530193OM 
          ------------------------------------X


          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 29, 1990 the above-named petitioner-owner filed an 
          administrative appeal against an order issued on July 25, 1990 by 
          the Rent Administrator (92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York) 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 608-10 West 150th 
          Street, New York, New York, various apartments.

          Subsequent thereto, the owner filed a petition in the Supreme Court 
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking 
          an order of mandamus. This resulted in a court ordered stipulation 
          remitting the proceeding for a determination of the owner's 
          administrative appeal herein.

          On July 25, 1990 the Rent Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for a major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase for 
          the controlled and stabilized apartments in the subject premises 
          based on a determination that a rent reduction order (CC530048B) 
          was in effect against the premises due to the owner's failure to 
          maintain services of a bulding-wide nature. 

          In this petition the owner contends, in substance, that it was 
          error for the Administrator to have denied the application since 
          there were no violations or rent reduction order in effect at the 
          time the application was filed; that all of the items that were the 
          subject of the aforementioned building-wide rent reduction order 
          had been corrected prior to the issuance of the order appealed 
          herein as evidenced by a letter, dated September 21, 1989, which it 
          received from the Compliance Bureau; that shortly after receipt of 
          said letter the owner filed a rent restoration application which 
          the DHCR has not timely acted upon; and that the MCI rent increases 
          should not have been disallowed since all repairs had been made.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that this petition should be denied.













               

          It is the established policy of the DHCR, as provided for in the 
          Rent Stabilization Code and as reflected in Policy Statement 90-8, 
          that "where there is a DHCR order in effect determining a failure 
          to maintain a buliding-wide service which resulted in a rent 
          reduction", such order will constitute a bar to obtaining an MCI 
          rent increase. 

          With regard to the owner's contention that the rent-reduction order 
          was not in effect at the time the application was filed, the  
          Commissioner notes that the Rent Law, Code and Policy Statement 90- 
          8 clearly provide that an owner who has applied for an MCI rent 
          increase shall not have such application granted if there is a 
          finding  that a rent reduction is warranted based on a finding by 
          the Division that the owner is not providing services of a 
          building-wide nature. (Accord: GE410026RO).

               DHCR records disclose the following:


               -    On January 12, 1989 a final order of rent 
                    reduction was issued for the subject premises 
                    based on a finding of a reduction in building- 
                    wide services. Said finding was based on a 
                    physical inspection conducted by a DHCR staff 
                    member on November 15, 1988. (Docket No. 
                    CC530048B).

               -    On February 13, 1989 the owner filed a rent 
                    restoration application. A physical inspection 
                    conducted by a DHCR staff member on June 20, 
                    1990 revealed that services had been partially 
                    restored. Based thereon, the Administrator 
                    denied rent restoration for the stabilized 
                    tenants and partially restored the rents of 
                    the controlled tenants. (Docket No. 
                    DB520106OR, issued August 22, 1989.)

               -    On July 26, 1989 a physical inspection of the 
                    premises was conducted by a DHCR staff member 
                    in response to a tenant assertion that the 
                    owner was not complying with the directive to 
                    restore services contained in the rent 
                    reduction order. Said inspection revealed that 
                    services had only been partially restored.

               -    In a letter dated September 21,1989 a staff 
                    member of the Compliance Bureau indicated that 
                    one of the tenants had informed the DHCR that 
                services had been restored. The owner was 
                    advised to file an application for the 
                    restoration of rent.








          The Commissioner notes that a letter from the Compliance Bureau 
          advising an owner of the right to file an application for rent 
          restoration does not constitute a finding by the Division that 
          services have been restored. (Accord EK210242RO) As noted therein, 
          an owner's obligation to maintain services is a continuing one.

          Although the owner contends that it filed a rent restoration 
          application on September 28, 1989 in response to the above 
          mentioned letter, DHCR records do not indicate that any such 
          application was filed on or near that date nor do they indicate 
          that any restoration application other than the aforementioned 
          application (Docket NO. DB 520106OR) was filed prior to the 
          issuance of the order appealed herein. 

          The Commissioner further notes that contrary to the owner's 
          certification to the maintenance of essential services and the 
          continued maintenance of such services, a physical inspection of 
          the premises conducted by a DHCR staff member on November 21,1990 
          revealed that the services for which rents were reduced were still 
          not fully restored as evidenced by an accumulation of garbage on 
          all floors due to inadequate janitorial services. Based thereon, 
          the Administrator denied rent restoration for the stabilized 
          tenants and only partially restored the rents of the controlled 
          tenants. (Docket No. EJ530001OR, issued December 26, 1990.)

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          determined that an MCI rent increase was not warranted since a 
          buliding-wide rent reduction order was outstanding against the 
          subject premises, and the owner failed to fully restore services 
          (FB530168OR; FC510120OR) until long after the Administrator's order 
          was issued, although it had adequate opportunity to do so.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New 
          York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition 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



















                                                         





                         



































































    

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