ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL420184RT
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.: EL420184RT
PAUL J. McALLISTER DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DH420061BO
(BK421761BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1599 York Avenue, Apt. 4S, 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, DH420061BO was
issued on December 7, 1990. In that order, the Administrator
revoked the finding of BK421761BR, issued July 7, 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 tenant submits a list of various allegedly
uncleared violations.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL420184RT
A List of Pending violations (LPV) discloses that, as of
January 1, 1987 there were one rent-impairing and five non rent-
impairing violations outstanding against the subject premises.
Therefore, in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the
subject premises for the 1988/89 cycle the owner in this proceeding
was obligated to certify to the clearance of the one rent
impairing and at least four (80% x five = four) of the non rent-
impairing violations.
On October 16, 1990, the New York City Department of Housing
Preservation and Development (HPD) conducted an inspection of the
subject premises. This inspection revealed that the owner had
cleared a sufficient number of violations from the subject premises
in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premiss
for the 1988/89 cycle.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant in the instant
proceeding has filed the instant appeal on behalf of himself as an
individual tenant, and not as a tenant's representative. The
Commissioner further notes that no other tenant of the subject
premises has appealed the Administrator's order being appealed
herein.
The Commissioner notes that of the various allegedly uncleared
violations listed by the tenant on appeal, only two ("no metal
doors" and "no hot water") reflect violations specifically
enumerated on the LPV. The Commissioner further notes that, of the
two violations cited both by the owner on appeal and by the LPV,
only the violation "no metal doors" (#38 on the LPV) is located in
the tenant's apartment. The "no hot water" violation (#46) was
located in another apartment at the subject premises.
The Commissioner notes that violation #38 was reported on the
above-mentioned HPD inspection report as "A", which means that the
inspector could not gain access to the apartment in order to
observe whether or not the violation had been cleared. As such the
owner was credited with clearing this violation (the owner was not
responsible for the HPD inspector's inability to gain access and is
thus not prejudiced by such failure).
The Commissioner further notes that violation #46 was reported
as "C" (cleared) by both the HPD inspection and by an Affidavit of
the tenant residing at that apartment, said Affidavit dated June
10, 1989 and submitted by the owner below with other violation
certification documents.
An owner's eligibility to increase MBRs at a given premises
for a given cycle is adjudged solely upon violations cited on the
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EL420184RT
LPV. In the instant case, except for the two above-cited
exceptions the majority of violations cited by the tenant on appeal
are not cited on the LPV. The tenant is hereby advised that this
order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a
complaint of reductions in service, if the facts so warrant.
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:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
