ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220156RT



                                 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.: FA220156RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: DG220597BO
            INEZ TOMLINSON                             (BK222914BR)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1299 Eastern Parkway, Apt. 8C, Brooklyn, 
          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, DG220597BO was 
          issued on December 7, 1990.  In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of BK222914BR, issued June 22, 1989, that the 
          owner be denied eligibility for a 1988/89 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.  Upon the issuance of BK222914BR, the owner of the 
          subject premises filed a Challenge to that order under Docket 
          #DG220597BO.  Among the evidence of violation clearance submitted 
          by the owner at Challenge was a letter dated July 22, 1989 and 
          signed by the tenant, in which letter the tenant attested to the 
          repair of all violations located in the subject apartment.

               On appeal, the tenant states (in toto) "Work in my apartment 
          was not done until after I went to court on the 21st of May 1990."















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220156RT



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

               As noted above, the tenant has made two claims concerning 
          repairs to her apartment.  On July 22, 1989 she stated that as of 
          that date violations located in her apartment had already been 
          cleared and on January 9, 1991 (the filing date of the instant 
          appeal) the same tenant states that work in her apartment was not 
          done until almost one year later.  Of the two statements, the 
          tenant's statement made on appeal is the more ambiguous.  Besides 
          the reference to May 21, 1990, there is no other indication as to 
          the nature of the tenant's alleged appearance in court on that 
          date.  The Commissioner thus feels that the tenant on appeal may be 
          referring to different violations (or decreases in service) that 
          arose in her apartment after the clearance of the violations 
          referred to above.

               The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that, inasmuch as 
          the only evidence the tenant presents in support of her contention 
          that repairs have not been made is her vague and ambiguous 
          statement made on appeal, said statement being in direct 
          contradiction of an earlier statement made by the identical tenant, 
          that the tenant has failed to prove that the owner failed to clear 
          the violations at the subject premises.

               The Commissioner notes that of the 95 non rent-impairing 
          violations of record at the subject premises, only one was located 
          in the subject apartment.  As the owner had a duty to clear 76 (95 
          X 80% = 76) of those violations, the mere fact that one violation 
          was not cleared does not necessarily entail the revocation of the 
          owner's eligibility.  Thus, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that, at the most, the evidence submitted by the tenant on appeal 
          does not necessarily prove that the owner failed to make the 
          minimum number of repairs in order to gain eligibility to raise 
          MBRs at the subject premises for 1988/89.

               This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right 
          to file a complaint of decreased services, if the circumstances so 
          warrant.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is     














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA220156RT

               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