ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430162RO


                                 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.: FG430162RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
            MICHAEL ROBERTSON                     ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
            BUCHBINDER & WARREN                   NO.: EJ420048BO
                                                       (DJ420751BR)
                                   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 184 8th Avenue, Apts. 3S, 4S, 5S, 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, EJ420048BO was 
          issued on June 28, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed 
          the finding of DJ420751BR, issued September 20, 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 reiterates the arguments he made at 
          Challenge and resubmits copies of the evidence he submitted at 
          Challenge in support of his arguments.  The owner argues that all 
          outstanding violations have been removed and he should thus be 
          granted eligibility.  The evidence submitted by the owner consists 
          of letters to tenants of various apartments in which violations are 
          located, and an affidavit from the building superintendent 
          attesting to the removal of all violations found in public areas.















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430162RO



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

               Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations states that in order to obtain eligibility to increase 
          MBRs at a given premises for a given cycle, the owner of that 
          premises must certify to the Administrator that, inter alia 100% of 
          all rent-impairing and 80% of all non rent-impairing violations 
          outstanding against the subject premises have been cleared.

               A List of Pending Violations (LPV) discloses that, as of 
          January 1, 1989 (one year before the beginning of the 1990/91 
          cycle) there were one rent-impairing and nine non rent-impairing 
          violations outstanding against the subject premises.  Therefore, in 
          order to gain eligibility to increase MBRs at the subject premises 
          for the 1990/91 Cycle, the owner had to certify that the one rent- 
          impairing violation and at least seven (9 X 80% = 7.2) non rent- 
          impairing violations had been removed.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the evidence submitted 
          by the owner, both at Challenge and on appeal does not rebut the 
          Administrator's finding that the owner is not eligible for an MBR 
          increase for the 1990/91 Cycle at the subject premises described on 
          the LPV.

               An examination of the owner's submission reveals that the 
          violations include six violations which were found in individual 
          apartments, and four (including the one rent-impairing violation) 
          which were found in public areas.  As alleged proof of the        
          removal of the violations located in individual apartments, the 
          owner submits on appeal and at Challenge copies of letters to the 
          tenants of those apartments informing them of the violations 
          located within each apartment.  Each letter requests that the 
          tenant inform the owner of the "status of each violation listed", 
          and requests that the tenant contact the owner upon receipt of the 
          letter.  Each letter is dated September 3, 1990.  As alleged proof 
          of the removal of the violations located in public areas, the owner 
          submits a copy of an affidavit signed by the building 
          superintendent and dated October 9, 1990, in which the 
          superintendent describes the four violations and states that the 
          required repairs have been made, and the violations thus removed.  
          Additionally, the owner argues on appeal that the one rent- 
          impairing violation was "tenant caused."

               A D.H.C.R. inspection of the subject premises, conducted on 
          May 1, 1991 disclosed that one of the violations occurring within 
          individual apartments had apparently been removed, as had one of 
          the violations occurring within a public area.








          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430162RO

               However, the D.H.C.R. inspector additionally found that the 
          one rent-impairing violation, despite the superintendent's 
          affidavit had not been removed.  This violation (#333 on the LPV), 
          consists of boxes accumulating in a public hallway.  

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's 
          characterization of this rent-impairing violation as "tenant 
          caused" is irrelevant to his duty to remove that violation.

               The Commissioner notes that the accumulation of boxes in a 
          public hallway, as described by violation #333 may affect other 
          tenants besides the tenant(s) who are allegedly causing the 
          problem.  The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that as the 
          clearance of rent-impairing violation #333 affects many tenants in 
          the subject premises the owner's duty to remove this violation is 
          absolute.

               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