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
      
    

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