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
|
