ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FK430208RO


                                 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.: FK430208RO
                                                  
               THE OLNICK ORGANIZATION            DISTRICT RENT
               C/O ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: FE420008BO
                                                       (DK427116BR)
                                   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 965 Fifth Avenue, apts. 3C & 18C, 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, FE420008BO was 
          issued on September 27, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of DK427116BR issued March 28, 1991, 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 alleges that, contrary to the 
          Administrator's finding, a sufficient number of violations at the 
          subject premises had been repaired.

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

















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FK430208RO

               Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at 
          a given premises an owner must certify to the Administrator inter
          alia that 80% of the non rent-impairing and 100% of the rent- 
          impairing violations of record against the subject premises as of 
          one year before the effective date of the order of eligibility have 
          been repaired.  In the instant proceeding, the effective date is 
          January 1, 1990, and the record date is January 1, 1989.  A List of 
          Pending Violations (LPV) reveals that, as of January 1, 1989 there 
          were one rent impairing and 17 non rent impairing violations 
          recorded against the subject premises.  The owner thus had to 
          certify that it had removed at least 14 (17 X 80% = 13.6) non rent 
          impairing violations.

               An examination of the record reveals that, prior to the 
          issuance of DK427116BR, the Administrator requested from the owner 
          evidence of removal of violations at the subject premises.  In 
          response, the owner sent the Administrator a letter stating that it 
          had repaired nine of the eighteen (17 non rent impairing and one 
          rent impairing) violations detailed in the LPV.  The owner 
          contended that the remaining eight violations were not removed 
          because they alternatively occurred in an apartment to which 
          repairmen were denied access or that they occurred in an apartment 
          which was no longer owned by the owner.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner below submitted 
          insufficient documentation to support its claim of lack of access 
          to one apartment.  The Commissioner notes that only three 
          violations were reported within this apartment.  The Commissioner 
          is therefore of the opinion that, even if its contention of denial 
          of access to this apartment was accepted by the Commissioner, the 
          new total number of cleared violations would still be insufficient 
          to gain eligibility for the owner.  The Commissioner further notes 
          that, notwithstanding the form of ownership, the violation 
          certification requirements as enunciated in 2202.3(h) must be met.

               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