ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FD230039RO
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.: FD230039RO
ANTHONY PANARIELLO, AS AGENT FOR
P & G REALTY, INC. DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EK220060BO(DK220350BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 8200 Bay Parkway, various apartments,
Brooklyn, 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, EK220060BO was
issued on March 15, 1991. In that order, the Administrator
affirmed the finding of DK220350BR issued October 18, 1990, that
the owner be denied eligibility for a 1990/91 Maximum Base Rent
(MBR) increase, due to the owner's failure to certify to the repair
of 80% of the non rent impairing violations outstanding against the
subject premises.
On appeal, the owner contends that all rent impairing
violations have been repaired. The owner states that there were
three violations, one of which was in an apartment (C11). The
owner submits on appeal a letter, signed by the occupant of
apartment C11, stating that the violation in that apartment had
been repaired. The owner also submits on appeal a letter signed by
the building superintendent in which he attests to the repair of
all three violations.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FD230039RO
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should
be denied.
The owner has not offered sufficient evidence to prove his
contention on appeal that the three violations were repaired. The
tenant's letter testifying to repairs in his apartment even if
accepted by the Commissioner on appeal is only probative of the
repair of one outstanding violation. As evidence of the repair of
the other two violations, the owner has only submitted the
superintendent's letter attesting to such repair. The
Administrator, in deciding the order under appeal herein relied on
the results of an inspection conducted by the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The
Commissioner is of the opinion that the evidence submitted by the
owner on appeal is insufficient to offset the Administrator's
reliance on the HPD inspection.
The Commissioner notes that, on appeal, the owner states that
all three violations were repaired during September 1987.
Nonetheless, an examination of the record reveals that the owner
did not make this argument before the Administrator during the
challenge phase of this proceeding.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
