Docket No. FC220221RT, FC220317RT
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.: FC220221RT
FC220317RT
FC220320/1RT
FD220204RT
FD220516/7RT
Various Tenants DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: DG220592BO(BL220189BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1802 Ocean Parkway, Various Apartments,
Brooklyn, New York.
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 petitions.
The issue before the Commissioner is whether the
Administrator's order was correct.
The Administrator's order being appealed, DG220592BO was issued
on March 15, 1991. In that order, the Administrator revoked the
finding of BL220189BR, 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. DL220592BO was originally issued on February 15, 1991,
with an effective date of January 1, 1990. It was reissued on
March 15, 1991 with the correct effective date of January 1, 1988.
Various tenants filed appeals of the order with the
Commissioner on an individual basis. Due to the similarity of
issues raised therein, the Commissioner has considered these
Docket No. FC220221RT, FC220317RT
appeals as one.
On appeal, the tenants individually raise various objections to
the Administrator's order. The tenants contend that various rent
reduction orders were outstanding against the subject premises as
of the effective date of the Administrator's order under review
herein, and as such, the owner was barred from collecting MBR
increases for 1988/89.
The tenants also contend that the owner had failed to clear a
sufficient number of violations from the subject premises so as to
gain for itself eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises
for 1988/89.
On appeal, the tenants also question the applicability of
BL220189BR to the owner's eligibility, various tenants contending
that such eligibility had previously been granted by the
Administrator in an order issued on December 23, 1988 under Docket
#BL220190BR.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should
be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and
Eviction Regulations an owner, in order to receive eligibility to
raise MBRs at a given premises for a given cycle must certify to
the Administrator that 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the
non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject
premises as of one year before the effective date have been
cleared.
In the instant proceeding the effective date of the
Administrator's order is January 1, 1988. Therefore, one year
before the effective date is January 1, 1987.
A List of Pending Violations discloses that, as of January 1,
1987 there were 16 rent-impairing and 85 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 all of the rent-impairing and at least
68 (80% X 85= 68) of the non rent-impairing violations.
A Violation Status Report compiled by the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development discloses that
the owner had cleared a sufficient number of violations from the
subject premises so as to gain for itself eligibility to raise MBRs
at the subject premises for 1988/89.
The fact that rent reduction order(s) is (are) outstanding
against a premises as of the effective date of an order granting
the owner of those premises eligibility to raise MBRs does not bar
Docket No. FC220221RT, FC220317RT
the owner from eligibility to raise MBRs, but, rather bars the
owner from collecting the increased rent, pending the issuance of
rent restoration order(s) by the Administrator, such order(s)
testifying to the removal of all violations cited by the
Administrator in the underlying rent reduction order(s).
The Commissioner notes that orders denying the owner a Fuel
Cost Adjustment at the subject premises are not rent reduction
orders. Similarly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
Administrator's denial of the owner's eligibility to raise MBRs at
the subject premises for a previous cycle is irrelevant.
As to the confusion as to which order (BL220189BR or
BL220190BR) is controlling in the instant proceeding: The
Commissioner notes that the order under review (and being upheld)
herein, DG220592BO on its face explicitly cites BL220189BR as the
order being challenged therein. The Commissioner further notes
that BL220190BR was apparently terminated by an order issued by the
Administrator on August 26, 1991 under docket #FB220055OR. The
Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that Administrator's order
BL220190BR is moot.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, and
the same hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
Joseph A. D'Agosta
Deputy Commissioner
|
