Docket No. FI430297RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FI430297RO
Weinreb Management ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
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 51 West 86th Street, Various Apartments,
New York, New York.
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, EH420217BO was issued
on September 6, 1991. In that order, the Administrator affirmed
the finding of DK420206BR 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. The Administrator found, more specifically that the
owner had failed to clear 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the
non rent impairing violation of record at the subject premises.
On appeal, the owner contends that repairs have been made. As
evidence of this contention, the owner submits a copy of a letter
from Barniv Security and Maintenance Services dated August 19,
1991. (The Administrator had already received the original letter).
The letter states that "all rent impairing and at least 80% of the
non rent impairing violations..." have been repaired by Barniv.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction
Regulations states that, in order to obtain eligibility to increase
Docket No. FI430297RO
MBRs at a given premises for a given cycle, the owner must certify
to the Administrator that 80% of the non rent-impairing and 100% of
the rent-impairing violations of record against that premises as of
one year before the effective date have been cleared by six months
before the effective date.
In the instant case, one year before the effective date was
January 1, 1989, and six months before the effective date was July
1, 1989. As such, the letter, even if deemed persuasive evidence
by the Commissioner is only probative that the violations were
clearly by August 19, 1991. The Commissioner is thus of the
opinion that such repairs, if made, were made in an untimely
fashion, and that the Administrator was correct in denying the
An examination of the record below reveals that a List of
Pending Violations (LPV) prepared by the New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) list 5 rent-impairing
and 61 non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject
premises as of January 1, 1989. In order to gain eligibility, the
owner had to repair all of the rent-impairing and 49 (61X80%=48.8)
non-rent-impairing violations. An HPD inspection, conducted on
October 16 and 29, 1989 found that, although all five rent-
impairing violations had been cleared, only 45 non-rent-impairing
violations had been cleared by the inspection dates. As noted
above, if owner's evidence is considered probative that four
additional violations were subsequently cleared, the evidence is
only probative that they were cleared on an untimely basis.
The Commissioner notes that the evidence is in the form of a
letter from Barniv to the Administrator. The Commissioner is of
the opinion that this letter is insufficient proof of the repair of
violations. Although the letter indicates the type of work done
("painting plastering.. repaired the parapet and roof..." etc.) the
letter does not go into sufficient detail so as to prove the
alleged repairs. The letter does not specify which violations were
repaired. As noted above no dates of the alleged repairs are
provided in the letter.
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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta