DHCR Decisions          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF120426RT                                 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.: FF120426RT                                                  DISTRICT RENT               LILLY STEINER                      ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET                                                  NO.: EH120060BO                                                       (DL122112BR)                                   PETITIONER          ------------------------------------X            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW               The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing          accommodations known as 37-06 72nd Street, Apt. 4F, Jackson          Heights, 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, EH120060BO was          issued on April 12, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator revoked          the finding of DL122112BR, 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.  The owner challenged the Administrator's denial of          eligibility, submitting evidence that was, in the Administrator's          opinion probative of the clearance of the requisite number of          violations from the subject premises.  The tenant filed an appeal          to the Administrator's order restoring eligibility.               On appeal the tenant charges that various violations persist          at the subject premises.  Specifically, the tenant maintains that          the following conditions exist:  "No heat", "The elevator door on          the 5th floor doesn't close", "No coffee shop attached to          building", "Indian restaurant attracts mice in the building",          "Violation in 1990."                          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF120426RT               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should          be denied.               On appeal the tenant alleges five separate violations.  An          examination of the List of Pending violations (LPV), the list of          violations outstanding against the subject premises as of January          1, 1989 discloses that of the five alleged violations, only one had          been reported, and the link between the reported violation (mice in          the kitchen of apartment 3F) and the tenant's allegation (a          restaurant on the ground floor of the subject premises attracting          mice) is, in the Commissioner's opinion, tenuous.               The Commissioner notes that, pursuant to Section 2202.3(h) of          the New York City Rent and Eviction Regulations the owner is          generally only responsible for those violations of record as of one          year before the effective date of the order of eligibility (in the          instant proceeding the effective date is January 1, 1990.  Thus the          owner was responsible for those violations of record as of January          1,1989).  Thus, the tenant's allegation on appeal of "Violation in          1990", is, if interpreted to mean that a new violation was reported          in 1990 for the first time, irrelevant to the owner's eligibility          to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1990/91.               The tenant alleges on appeal that the elevator door on the          fifth floor is malfunctioning.  The Commissioner notes that the          tenant lives on the fourth floor.  The Commissioner further notes          that the tenant has filed this appeal on behalf of herself only and          not as a tenants' representative, and that no other tenants have          appealed the Administrator's order granting eligibility.               The allegation "No coffee shop attached to building" is, in          the Commissioner's opinion too vague and ambiguous to be considered          on appeal.                 The Commissioner further notes that the Administrator's order          being appealed herein was not appealed by any other tenant.               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner was not          prejudiced by the Administrator's failure to serve it with a          Request for Additional Information at the owner's proper address.               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          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF120426RT          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.          ISSUED:                                                                                                                     JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA                                             Deputy Commissioner