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. FE530010RO
: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
WLS ASSOCIATES, BY DOCKET NO. EI520009BO
WILLIAM L. SONN, GENERAL PARTNER, : (DL420997BR)
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 200 Cabrini
Boulevard, various apartments, New York, NY.
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, EI520009BO was issued on April
12, 1991. In that order, the Administrator affirmed the finding of
DL420997BR, issued August 3, 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, specifically the owner's failure to clear
one rent impairing violations.
On appeal the owner contends that this violation (designated by the New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) as
violation #190) had been repaired. As proof of this contention the owner
submit on appeal a plumber's invoice attesting to the repair of this
violation. In support of this contention the owner also submits on appeal
a copy of a "violation report" which similarly purports to prove the
repair of violation #190. The owner additionally contends on appeal that
the "subject premises is part of a cooperative and is not managed by the
owner of the apartments involved". In support of this contention the
owner submits on appeal an "affidavit" from the property manager in
support of this contention.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
DOCKET NO.: FE530010RO
The Commissioner notes that the "inspection report" submitted by the owner
on appeal allegedly proving that Violation #190 was repaired, was
originally submitted by the owner at challenge below, as part of a larger
report. The Commissioner is of the opinion that this report is not
probative of the owner's contention on appeal. The Commissioner is of the
opinion that the owner has apparently misinterpreted the language of the
report to the extent that the owner apparently feels that this language
indicates that Violation #190 has been cleared.
The Commissioner notes that the plumber's invoice attesting to repair of
Violation #190 is dated December 12, 1988. An examination of the record
reveals that Violation #190 is noted as outstanding as of January 1, 1989
in an HPD List of Pending Violations. Moreover, an HPD inspection
conducted on August 17 and August 24, 1989 failed to disclose the
correction of this violation.
As for the owner's additional argument on appeal that he is not
responsible for violations at the subject premises: The Commissioner is
of the opinion that, regardless of the form of ownership of a particular
premises, eligibility to raise MBRs at that premises can only be granted
upon the timely clearing of violations at the premises pursuant to Section
2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations.
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
|
