ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE530265RO
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.: FE530265RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EI520013BO
LESTER J. TANNER (DK425211BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PROCEEDING
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 710 West 173rd Street, Apts. A, D, 6, 7,
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.
The Administrator's order being appealed, EI520013BO was
issued on April 19, 1991. In that order, the Administrator
affirmed the finding of DK425211BR, 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 owner submits a copy of the MBR Challenge form
he submitted below. The owner speculates that the Administrator
affirmed the previous order due to the "technicality" of the super
of the subject premises not signing the Challenge form when it was
originally submitted. (The super signed the "refiled" Challenge).
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should
be granted.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE530265RO
The Administrator did not reject the owner's Challenge due to
the reasons specified by the owner on appeal. Rather, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the completeness of the
Challenge form is irrelevant to the instant proceeding.
The Administrator rejected the owner's Challenge and affirmed
its previous denial of eligibility due to the owner's perceived
failure to correct a sufficient number of violations, as noted by
the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and
Development (HPD) inspection of the subject premises on October 13,
1989.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner presented
evidence at Challenge of the repair of a sufficient number of
violations to gain him eligibility to raise 1990/91 MBRs at the
subject premises.
Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction
Regulations requires inter alia that, in order to gain eligibility
to raise MBRs at a given premises an owner must certify to the
Administrator that 80% of the non rent impairing and 100% of the
rent impairing violations of record at the subject premises as of
one year before the effective date of the order of eligibility have
been cleared. In the instant proceeding, the record date is
January 1, 1989.
An examination of the record reveals that an HPD List of
Pending Violations (LPV) enumerated as of January 1, 1989, 3 rent
impairing violations and 69 non rent impairing violations
outstanding against the subject premises. According to the 100% -
80% formula of Section 2202.3(h), in order to gain eligibility the
owner would have to certify to the Administrator that all three of
the rent impairing violations had been cleared, and that 55 (69 x
80%) of the non rent impairing violations had been cleared. The
above-mentioned HPD inspection on October 13, 1989 revealed that
all three rent impairing violations and 51 non rent impairing
violations had been cleared. Additional evidence submitted by the
owner at Challenge, such evidence consisting of signed letters by
tenants attesting to the repair of enumerated violations within
their respective apartments, is in the Commissioner's opinion
persuasive that a sufficient number of violations were repaired so
as to make the owner eligible for 1990/91 MBR increases at the
subject premises.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator
erred in disregarding evidence of repair given in both the HPD
inspection report and in the tenants' letters supplied by the owner
at Challenge.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, it is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FE530265RO
ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be,
and the same hereby are, granted, and that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, revoked, and it is
further ordered that the landlord be eligible for 1990/91 Maximum
Base Rent (MBR) increase subject to the usual conditions to be
specified by the administrator.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
