FI 930327 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 S.J.R. No.: 5869
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: FI 930327 RO

          126 Franklin Avenue Associates,      DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
                                               DOCKET NO.: NEH-9-1-0002-OH
                                   PETITIONER
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On September 6, 1991, the above-named  owners  timely  refiled  a
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on  May  7,
          1991, by the Rent Administrator  in  the  White  Plains  district
          office of the above-referenced Division, concerning  the  housing
          accommodations known as 126 Franklin Avenue (various apartments), 
          New Rochelle, New York  in  which  order  the  Administrator  had
          denied an application for permission to raise rents based on  the
          owner's hardship.

          Later, in conjunction with  another  matter  pending  before  the
          Supreme Court, the owners requested the  court  to  rule  on  the
          instant  matter  before  the  Division  entertained  the  instant
          petition.  On  October  23,  1991,  Justice  LaCava  denied  that
          request and remitted the  proceeding  to  the  Division  for  the
          Commissioner's determination.

          This  proceeding  originated   in   June   of   1990   with   the
          aforementioned  "alternative   hardship"   application.    On   a
          "Qualification Form" attached to the application, the owners were 
          asked inter alia if they had "resolved all  legal  objections  to
          any real estate, and/or [sic] water and  sewer  charges  for  the
          test year."  They checked a box marked "no." Next to that box the 
          form stated:  "Stop.  You  do  not  qualify  for  an  Alternative
          Hardship  Increase  at  this  time."   The  owners   nevertheless
          completed and filed the application.

          The aforementioned order of May 7,  1991,  denied  the  requested
          relief because "[t]he owner has not resolved its  tax  certiorari
          for the subject premises, for the test year."  That determination 
          is here appealed.

          Petitioners first argue that there is no requirement that a tax 
          certiorari proceeding be concluded before a hardship  application
          is filed, asserting in support of that statement that neither the 
          application  forms  nor  the   accompanying   instructions   made
          reference to such a requirement.  Both as to the law  and  as  to
          the aforementioned forms, however, petitioners are incorrect.  

          The Tenant Protection Regulations provide that  "[n]o  owner  may
          file an application nor may the  Division  grant  such  owner  [a
          hardship] increase  unless  the  owner  has  resolved  all  legal
          objections to any real estate taxes . . .  for  the  test  year."






          FI 930327 RO
          Petitioners  do  not  dispute  that  their   pending   certiorari
          proceeding constitutes an unresolv d  legal  objection  to  real-
          estate taxes  for  the  test  year.   They  were  warned  by  the
          pertinent form, moreover, not to file the application in question 
          if such an objection was then outstanding.  See p. 1, supra.

          The other assignment of error turns on the contention that  since
          the amount of disputed tax is  much  smaller  than  that  of  the
          requested rental increase, the latter should not have been denied 
          in toto.  That argument, however, assumes  a  discretion  in  the
          Administrator that the  latter  does  not  have.   The  pertinent
          regulation, quoted above, makes clear that a hardship application 
          filed (wrongfully) while a real-estate tax  dispute  is  pending,
          cannot be granted by the Division.  

          Petitioners in sum having shown no error on  the  Administrator's
          part, it is 

          THEREFORE  ORDERED  in  accordance  with  the  Emergency   Tenant
          Protection Act and the Tenant Protection Regulations,  that  this
          petition  be  and  the  same  hereby  is  denied  and  the   Rent
          Administrator's order, 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