Docket No. FG430158RO


                                    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.: FG430158RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
          Erwin Weiss, Managing Agent             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EH420158BO(DJ422300BR)
           
                                   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 229 East 12th Street, various apartments, 
          New York, 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 petition.

              The issue before the Commissioner is whether the 
          Administrator's order was correct.

              The Administrator's order being appealed, EH420158BO was issued 
          on May 31, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed the 
          finding of DJ422300BR issued August 3, 1990, that the owner be 
          denied eligibility for a 1990/91 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 makes several arguments contesting the 
          Administrator's decision.  The owner submits a copy of a letter 
          sent to him on March 27, 1987 by the New York City Department of 
          Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) concerning the most 
          recent HPD inspection of the subject premises.  The owner on appeal 
          interprets this letter as clearing all violations from the 
          subject premises.













          Docket No. FG430158RO

              The owner on appeal states that court-ordered inspections of 
          the subject premises conducted during 1987 and 1988 disclose that 
          violations of record as of June 10, 1987 did not exist.

              The owner on appeal also alleges that various violations were 
          tenant-created, and as such the owner is not under any duty to 
          clear them.

              The owner on appeal submits an affidavit from a licensed 
          engineer, in which the affiant testifies that he inspected the 
          subject premises on September 8, 1990 and that various violations 
          had been cleared.

              The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

              Pursuant to the owner's request at Challenge an inspection of 
          the subject premises was conducted by the DHCR.  The DHCR 
          inspector's report disclosed that the owner had failed to clear 
          sufficient violations in order to receive eligibility to raise MBRs 
          at subject premises for 1990/91.

              Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations requires owners to clear violations which are of record 
          as of one year before the effective date of the order of 
          eligibility.  As such, inspections of the subject premises (Court 
          ordered or otherwise) disclosing violation clearance in previous 
          years are irrelevant to the Administrator's finding, as is any 
          communication from the HPD maintaining same.

              As noted above, the engineer's inspection upon which the owner 
          relies in asserting the clearance of violations occurred on 
          September 8, 1990.  The Commissioner notes, however that the DHCR 
          inspection referred to above was conducted during May, 1991.  The 
          Commissioner is thus of the opinion that any violations reported as 
          cleared by the engineer and found to be uncleared by the DHCR 
          inspector may have recurred during the intervening eight months.

              As for the owner's contentions on appeal that he is not 
          responsible for violations caused by tenants:  Depending on the 
          nature and frequency of violations allegedly caused by tenants, the 
          DHCR may waive the owner's requirement to clear these violations.  
          In order to be eligible for such a waiver the owner, however must 
          submit documentary proof to the Administrator that the tenant was 
          put on notice as to the existence of the violation.  Such proof may 
          take the form of a certified letter to the tenant.  The 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner has not presented any 
          such proof in the instant proceeding.
              THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is

              ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 






          Docket No. FG430158RO

          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