ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA430019RO
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.: FA430019RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CI420079BT
W. T. ASSOCIATES (7M01521M)
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 230 Central Park South (a/k/a 226-230 West
59th 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.
Various tenants residing at the subject premises, by their
representative filed with the Administrator a Challenge to the
order granting the owner eligibility to raise Maximum Base Rents
(MBRs) at the subject premises for the 1986/87 cycle, said order
issued on September 30, 1988 under the Docket# 7M01521M. Based on
the tenants' Challenge, the Administrator issued the order under
review herein on March 23, 1990, under Docket# CI420079BT, in which
order the Administrator revoked the owner's eligibility. In that
order the Administrator determined that the owner had failed to
certify to the timely clearance of a sufficient number of
violations from the subject premises.
On appeal the owner contends that the Administrator's order
was incorrect, inasmuch as the owner timely filed the various
certification documentation.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FA430019RO
On October 8, 1986, the New York City Department of Housing
Preservation and Development conducted an inspection of the subject
premises. This inspection revealed that the owner had failed to
clear a sufficient number of violations from the subject premises
in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises
for the 1986/87 cycle.
The Commissioner notes that, in the order under review herein,
the Administrator states that the owner is denied eligibility due
to the owner's failure to "properly certify and remove (emphasis
added)...violations." The Commissioner further notes that on
appeal the owner states "Landlord did...file the Certification
Requirements." The owner does not on appeal make any reference to
the removal of violations.
The statutorily-imposed requirement that owners "certify" to
the removal of violation at a given premises is more than a
formality that can be satisfied by the mere filing of papers.
Rather, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the certification
of the removal of violations from a given premises consists of the
owner's actually clearing those violations and submitting
certification to the Administrator attesting to same.
An examination of the file reveals that the owner in the
instant proceeding has, per its contentions on appeal timely filed
violation certification with the Administrator. As noted above,
however, the owner has not actually cleared the requisite number of
violations from the subject premises, and as also noted above such
clearance is required.
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
Certifying Officer
|
