ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC130268RT
                                  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.: FC130268RT 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EI120061BO
              JULIUS WEINSTEIN, ET AL.                 (DL121795BR)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named tenants filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 68-64 Yellowstone Blvd., Apts. A33, A10, 
          A62, Forest Hills, 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, EI120061BO was 
          issued on February 15, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of DL121795BR 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 tenants make various allegations contesting the 
          Administrator's grant of eligibility.  The tenants first contend 
          that the owner was denied eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject 
          premises for the 1988/89 cycle.  

               The tenants also contend on appeal that the Administrator 
          erred by not serving them with a copy of the owner's Challenge to 
          the order below denying the owner eligibility.  The tenants then 
          contend (after they had apparently examined the file) that the 
          owner's Challenge form was improperly filled out, inasmuch as the 
          owner did not indicate the tenants' names or addresses on the form.  














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC130268RT

               The tenants additionally submit evidence to support their 
          assertion that the owner has failed to clear the requisite number 
          of violations from the subject premises in order to gain 
          eligibility, this evidence consisting of a List of Pending 
          Violations (LPV) outstanding against the subject premises as of 
          October 21, 1990.  

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

               The fact that the owner of the subject premises was denied 
          eligibility to raise MBRs for 1988/89 is irrelevant to the issue of 
          whether the identical owner is eligible to raise MBRs at the 
          identical premises for 1990/91.

               Challenges to MBR Orders of Eligibility, whether by owners or 
          tenants are ex parte and therefore the Administrator's not serving 
          the tenants with the Order of Eligibility was not error.  In 
          addition, the Commissioner notes that when the tenants did examine 
          the Challenge the defects alleged by the tenants in the owner's 
          Challenge form are of a relatively minor nature, not sufficient to 
          warrant denial of eligibility.

               As to the owner's alleged failure to clear violations from the 
          subject premises:

               Pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations an owner, in order to receive eligibility to 
          raise MBRs at a given premises for a given cycle must certify to 
          the Administrator that 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the 
          non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject 
          premises as of one year before the effective date have been 
          cleared.

               In the instant proceeding the effective date of the 
          Administrator's order is January 1, 1990.  Therefore, one year 
          before the effective date is January 1, 1989.

               An LPV discloses that, as of January 1, 1989 there were 3 
          rent-impairing and 65 non rent-impairing violations outstanding 
          against the subject premises.  Therefore, in order to gain 
          eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for the 1990/91 
          cycle the owner in this proceeding was obligated to certify to the 
          clearance of all of the rent-impairing and at least 52 (80% x 65 = 
          52) of the non rent-impairing violations.  A Violation Status 
          Report (VSR) compiled by the New York City Division of Housing 
          Preservation and Development (HPD) discloses that the requisite 
          number of violations had been cleared from the subject premises.  


          The Commissioner notes that Rent-Impairing Violation # 459 (repair 
          flushing apparatus in apartment B37) was noted on the VSR as "A" 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FC130268RT

          (HPD inspector was denied access to the subject apartment), and 
          that the owner submitted at Challenge an affidavit from the 
          superintendent of the subject premises, in which affidavit the 
          superintendent testified to the repair of the flushing apparatus.

               The Commissioner notes that Violation # 459 remains 
          outstanding on the LPV submitted by the tenants on appeal.  This 
          LPV is different in form from the LPV used by the owner as a basis 
          for clearing violations.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the LPV submitted by the tenants on appeal is more in the form of 
          a compilation of previously recorded violations, and does not 
          indicate the results of previous HPD inspections.  As such, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the LPV submitted by the 
          tenants on appeal is not probative of their contention that the 
          owner has failed to clear violations at the subject premises.

               The Commissioner notes that the Examiner's Progress Sheet is 
          of procedural use only and has no bearing on the Administrator's 
          (or Commissioner's) decision.

               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