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originally made at Challenge below, that the List of Pending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
|
