Docket No. FI430297RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK 
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FI430297RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
          Weinreb Management                      ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EH420217BO(DK420206BR)


              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 
          owner eligibility.

              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
                                             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