FA 430361-RO
                                  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     S.J.R. NO. 5759
          APPEAL OF
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
            HELMSLEY - SPEAR, INC.,              DOCKET NO.: FA 430361-RO      
                                                
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ORDER
                                                 DOCKET NO.: DD 420007-BT
                                                            (BJ 420958-BR)
                                PETITIONER     
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named  petitioner-owner  timely  filed  a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on April 6, 1990  by
          the Director of the Maximum Base Rent (MBR) Unit, 92-31 Union Hall 
          Street, Jamaica, NY concerning housing accommodations known  as  7
          Park Avenue, New York, NY,  various  accommodations.   However  on
          March 21, 1991, the Commissioner issued an  order  dismissing  the
          petition on the basis that it was not timely filed.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition  in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and 
          Rules requesting that the order of the Commissioner be annulled.
          The proceeding was remitted by Court order  to  the  Division  for
          consideration of the petitioner's  administrative  appeal  on  the
          merits.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence  in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the  record  relevant
          to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          On February 7, 1989, the Director issued an Order  of  Eligibility
          granting 1988-89 MBR increases for the subject building.   [Docket
          No. BJ-420958-BR.]

          Subsequent thereto, one of the tenants filed  a  challenge  (first
          level administrative appeal) to the 1988-89 Order  of  Eligibility
          alleging, in substance,  that  certain  violations  had  not  been
          corrected.

          On April 6, 1990, the Director issued  an  Order  denying  1988-89
          Maximum Base Rents based on a finding that  the  owner  failed  to
          meet the violation certification  requirements  and  revoking  the
          above mentioned Order of Eligibility.  [Docket No. DD-420007-BT.]

          In this petition, the owner contends, in substance, that it has no 

          record of any violations for the subject apartments.

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






          FA 430361-RO


          Procedures established under the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations
          provide,  among  other  things,  that  no  rent  increase  may  be
          authorized under the Maximum Base Rent program commencing  January
          1, 1988 unless the owner has removed all  of  the  rent  impairing
          violations (as defined in the multiple dwelling law, Section 302a) 
          and  at  least  80%  of  all  other  (i.e.,  non-rent   impairing)
          violations on record as of January 1, 1987, or six months prior to 
          the filing of the 1988-89 Violation  Certification,  whichever  is
          later.   In  this  proceeding  the  owner  filed   the   Violation
          Certification on October 29, 1987,  thereby  certifying  that  all
          violations on record as of  January  1,  1987  had  been  cleared,
          corrected or abated.

          The record shows that on January 1, 1987 there were zero (0)  rent
          impairing  violations  and   sixteen   (16)   non-rent   impairing
          violations (Item Nos. 446, 448, 450,  465,  470,  471,  472,  481,
          483, 486, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, and 504).  Therefore, in  order
          to qualify for 1988-89 MBR increases, the owner  was  required  to
          correct thirteen (13) of  the  16  non-rent  impairing  violations
          pending against the building on January 1, 1987.

          On August 16 and 23, 1989  inspectors  from  the  Office  of  Code
          Enforcement conducted physical inspections of the subject premises 
          and reported that nine (9) of the  non-rent  impairing  violations
          (Item Nos. 446, 450, 470, 486, 499, 500, 502,  503  and  504)  had
          been cleared or cancelled, and that  seven  (7)  of  the  non-rent
          impairing violations (Item Nos. 448, 465, 471, 472, 481,  483  and
          501) had not been corrected or no access could be obtained in  the
          case of five (5) of the 7 (Item Nos. 448, 465, 471, 472 and 483).

          From the record, it cannot be found that the requisite  number  of
          violations pending as of January 1, 1987 (in this case, 13 of  the
          16 non-rent  impairing  violations)  were  cleared,  corrected  or
          abated.  Based thereon, the Commissioner finds that the  owner  is
          not entitled to 1988-89 Maximum Base Rent increases.

          Regarding the owner's contention that it  has  no  record  of  any
          violations for the subject apartments, the Commissioner notes that 
          the report of the Office of  Code  Enforcement  inspectors  is  of
          greater probative value than the bare allegations of the owner  as
          to the existence of violations.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations,
          it is








          FA 430361-RO


          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, 
          and that  the  Director's  Order  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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