STATE OF NEW YORK 
                                OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT

               MARILYN HALM                       DISTRICT RENT
                                                  NO.: DG420425BO


               The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 322 East 19th Street, Apts. 2R and 2F, 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 petitions.

               The issue before the Commissioner is whether the 
          Administrator's order was correct.

               The Administrator's order being appealed, DG420425BO was 
          issued on January 18,1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of BL420206BR, 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 requirement necessary to the owner's being granted an 
          MBR increase.

               On appeal, the two tenants individually object to the 
          Administrator's order.  Both tenants, while conceding that the 
          owner has since earned eligibility to raise 1988/89 MBRs at the 
          subject premises contend that the owner failed to make various 
          repairs within their respective apartments.  Additionally, one of 
          the tenants alleges that the owner failed to repair a violation 
          located in a public area.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should 
          be denied.


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT

               The Commissioner notes that the two above-captioned petitions 
          were submitted independently.  The Commissioner is of the opinion 
          however, that due to the petitions' appealing the identical 
          Administrator's order, as well as the similarity of issues raised 
          on appeal the two petitions are sufficiently similar as to allow 
          the Commissioner to consider the two petitions together.

               In consideration of the two appeals, the Commissioner first 
          notes that the issue of painting was raised by both tenants on 
          appeal, wherein each tenant alleged separately that her apartment 
          was not painted on a timely basis.  Moreover, each tenant 
          specifically alleged various violations (i.e., leaky walls, holes 
          in the bathroom ceiling, etc.) in her respective apartment.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the alleged 
          persistence of the above-named violations is irrelevant to the 
          Administrator's determination in the instant proceeding.

               For the grant or denial of eligibility to rely upon the 
          persistence of a particular violation(s), the violation(s) 
          allegedly uncleared must either be rent-impairing in nature or 
          otherwise constitute more than 20% of the violations listed in the 
          List of Pending Violations (LPV); or it must consist of the 
          reduction of an essential service.

               The alleged violations located in the tenants' apartments fail 
          both of these tests.  As per inspections of the subject premises 
          performed by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation 
          and Development all violations noted on the LPV as being of record 
          against the subject premises had been cleared.  Moreover, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the violations do not fit the 
          statutorily prescribed definition of a reduction of essential 

               The Commissioner notes that one of the tenants alleges at 
          appeal that the front door of the building is unlocked.  Although 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that this would constitute a 
          reduction of an essential service, and would as such deny the owner 
          eligibility, an examination of the record discloses that an 
          inoperative front door is not stated as a violation on the LPV.  
          Moreover, the owner, in reply to the tenant's petition submitted 
          evidence to the Commissioner, in the form of repairmen's bills, of 
          continuing maintenance of the front door, both before and during 
          the 1988/89 cycle.

               The Commissioner further notes that both tenants state on 
          appeal that most of the alleged violations were eventually cleared.


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

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FB420363/4RT

               ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, 
          and the same hereby are, 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