ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ530202RO
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.: FJ530202RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
WEINREB MANAGEMENT NO.: EH520181BO
(DK420201BR)
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 110 West 96th Street, various apartments,
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, EH520181BO was
issued on September 13,1991. In that order, the Administrator
affirmed the finding of DK420201BR 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.
On appeal, the owner argues that all violations at the subject
premises were removed. As evidence, the owner submits an affidavit
signed by the building superintendent, in which the affiant states
that all violations were removed and all non rent-impairing
violations at the subject premises had been removed "prior to June
1, 1989".
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ530202RO
Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and
Eviction Regulations an owner, in order to gain eligibility to
raise MBRs at a given premises for a given Cycle, must certify to
the Administrator that 100% of all rent-impairing and 80% of all
non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject
premises as of one year before the effective date of the order of
eligibility have been removed by six months before the effective
date. In the instant proceeding, the effective date was January 1,
1990. Thus, one year before the effective date was January 1, 1989,
and six months before the effective date was July 1, 1989.
A List of Pending Violations (LPV) discloses that, as of
January 1, 1989 there were 12 non rent-impairing and one rent-
impairing violation of record against the subject premises. In
order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for
the 1990/91 Cycle the owner was therefore obliged to certify to the
Administrator that the one rent-impairing violation and at least
ten (12 X 80% = 9.6) non rent-impairing violations had been
removed.
As stated above, the owner on appeal asserts that all
violations were removed and, more specifically, all non rent-
impairing violations were removed in a timely manner. The
Commissioner notes, however, that the owner has submitted no
evidence supporting this assertion beyond the affidavit of its
employee, the building superintendent.
On May 13, 1991 the subject premises were inspected by the New
York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD).
One page of the report of the HPD inspection was located in the
file. This page discloses that the HPD inspectors found that the
one rent-impairing violation was still outstanding as of May 13,
1991, as were at least four of the non rent-impairing violations
previously disclosed by the LPV. The Commissioner is therefore of
the opinion that the owner has not removed a sufficient number of
violations from the subject premises and that the Administrator was
therefore correct in denying the owner eligibility to raise MBRs at
the subject premises for 1990/91.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's argument on appeal
(that all non rent-impairing violations had been removed prior to
June 1, 1989) was made by the owner for the first time on appeal.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ530202RO
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
|