ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FD530271RO

                                 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.: FD530271RO

            MARK KERMAN                           DISTRICT RENT
            COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY                   ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EK520053BO
                                                       (DK421075BR)
                                   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 511 West 112th Street, various apartments, 
          New York, 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, EK520053BO was 
          issued on March 22, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of DK421075BR, issued October 25, 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 basically restates his contentions 
          originally made at Challenge below, that the List of Pending 
          violations (LPV) indicated that there were one rent impairing and 
          17 non-rent impairing violations of record at the subject premises, 
          as of January 1, 1989.  The owner also stated that a Violation 
          Status Report (VSR) indicated that as of August 31, 1989 the one 
          rent impairing and 6 non-rent impairing violations had been 
          corrected.  The owner included copies of the LPV and VSR with his 
          appeal.  The owner contends on appeal (as well as below), that 















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FD530271RO

          "Under present DHCR policy" any premises with no rent impairing
          and "less than 15 non-rent impairing violations is regarded as 
          "having met the violation certification requirements necessary to 
          qualify for the MBR increase."

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

               The Administrator grants eligibility to raise MBRs subject to 
          the provisions of Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, which requires the owner of a particular 
          premises to certify to the Administrator that 100% of the rent 
          impairing and 80% of the non-rent impairing violations of record 
          against the premises have been corrected.  The owner is thus in 
          error in his contention on appeal that the numerical threshold of 
          "less than 15" non-rent impairing violations is used by the 
          D.H.C.R. in determining the owner's eligibility for MBR increases.  
          As noted above, the standard used by the D.H.C.R. is a proportional 
          one, namely, that 80% of the non-rent impairing violations must be 
          corrected.  In the instant case, the owner would have had to prove 
          the repair of at least 14 (17x80% = 13.6) non-rent impairing 
          violations in order to gain eligibility, having otherwise satisfied 
          the other certification requirements.

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

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and 
          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      
    

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