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