ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE420311/2RT
                                  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.: FE420311/2RT

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
               STEPHEN G. CRANE                   ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
               ALVIN KATZ                         NO.: DG420498BO
                                                       (BK421837BR)
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named tenants filed timely petitions for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 35 East 84th Street, Apts. 4D & 10D, New 
          York, N.Y.

               The Commissioner notes that, aside from the separate 
          apartments named in the respective petitions these petitions are 
          substantially identical.  As such, they have been considered as one 
          by the Commissioner.

               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, DG420498BO was 
          issued on April 19, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator revoked 
          the finding of BK421837BR, 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.

               On appeal the tenants contend that the owner should be denied 
          eligibility.  They base this contention on two allegations.

               The first allegation made by the tenants in their separate 
          appeals is that the owner did not clear a sufficient number of 
          violations from the subject premises.  














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE420311/2RT

               The second allegation is that there were, as of the effective 
          date of the MBR (January 1, 1988) several orders reducing rent 
          outstanding against the subject premises, due to the 
          Administrator's finding of lack of services at the subject 
          premises.  The tenants continue that orders of rent restoration  
          were not issued until after the conclusion of the MBR cycle.

               The tenants maintain on appeal, in their separate petitions 
          that the Administrator thus erred in granting eligibility to the 
          owner to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1988/89, inasmuch 
          as the owner is barred from so raising rents as long as a rent 
          reduction order was outstanding as of the effective date of the 
          order increasing rent, and an order restoring rent was issued after 
          the conclusion of the cycle.

               The tenants also question the "fairness" of the 
          Administrator's order, inasmuch as the Administrator, in the order 
          under review herein allowed the owner to collect a rent increase 
          retroactively, while the tenants were only granted rent reductions 
          prospectively from the issue date of the above-mentioned rent 
          reduction orders.

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

               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 dates have been 
          cleared.

               In the instant proceeding the effective date of the 
          Administrator's order is January 1, 1988.  Therefore, one year 
          before the effective date is January 1, 1987.

               A List of Pending Violations discloses that, as of January 1, 
          1987 there were 3 rent-impairing and 17 non rent-impairing 
          violations outstanding against the subject premises.  Therefore, in 
          order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 
          the 1988/89 cycle the owner in this proceeding was obligated to 
          certify to the clearance of all of the rent-impairing and at least 
          14 (80% x 17 = 13.6) of the non rent-impairing violations. 






               The New York City Department of Housing Preservation and 
          Development conducted an inspection of the subject premises.  This 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE420311/2RT

          inspection revealed that the owner cleared a sufficient number of 
          violations from the subject premises in order to gain eligibility 
          to raise MBRs at the subject premises for the 1988/89 cycle.

               The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the owner has met 
          the violation certification standards necessary for eligibility.

               An examination of the record reveals that the tenants in their 
          appeals described Administrator's orders ## LC002442S, DC420443S, 
          and AL420446S as all ordering rent reductions, and all being 
          outstanding throughout the entire 1988/89 cycle (rent restoration 
          for each order was granted in January or February 1991).  This 
          examination further reveals that each order was issued before the 
          1988/89 cycle and, as per the tenant's separate allegations on 
          appeal rent was restored in each case after the conclusion of that 
          cycle.

               The fact that there is a rent-reducing order outstanding 
          against the subject premises does not bar the owner of those 
          premises from eligibility to raise MBRs.  The owner is, however, 
          barred from collecting the MBR increase pending the issuance of an 
          order of rent restoration, at which time the MBR increase becomes 
          collectible prospectively only.

               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