ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF530209RO

                                 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.: FF530209RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
               ROBERT J. KAFARSKI                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
               HUMBLE MANAGEMENT CORP.            NO.: EI520005BO(DK420867BR)
            
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 61 Hamilton Place, various apartments, 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, EI520005BO was 
          issued on May 17, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed 
          the finding of DK420867BR, 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 contends that various violations cited 
          below have been repaired.  Among those violations is one rent- 
          impairing violation (#287).  Violation #287 is based on a New York 
          City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) 
          inspector's finding that the toilet in apartment #44 of the subject 
          premises was malfunctioning.  The owner submitted on appeal a 
          repair order dated June 10, 1990 and signed by the tenant of 
          apartment #44, said signature attesting to the repair of the toilet 
          (and the ostensible clearing of violation #287).















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF530209RO

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

               Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations states that in order to receive eligibility to raise 
          MBRs at a certain premises, the owner must certify inter alia to 
          the Administrator that 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the 
          non rent-impairing violations of record as of one year before the 
          effective date (usually one year before the first day of the cycle) 
          have been cleared.  In the instant case, concerning the 1990/91 
          Cycle, the record date is January 1, 1989.

               An examination of the record reveals a List of Pending 
          Violations (LPV) which states that, as of January 1,1989 there were 
          15 rent-impairing and 79 non rent-impairing violations of record 
          against the subject premises. In order to receive eligibility to 
          raise MBRs for the 1990/91 Cycle then, the owner would have to 
          certify that all of the rent-impairing and at least 63 of the non 
          rent-impairing (79 X 80% = 63.2) violations had been removed.  
          Under the docket # DK420867BR, the Administrator found that the 
          owner had not made such a certification.

               In his Challenge to that order the owner submitted the report 
          of HPD inspections held at the subject premises on August 13 and 
          20, 1990.  Although those inspections disclosed that a sufficient 
          number of non rent-impairing violations had been removed in order 
          to otherwise gain eligibility for the owner, rent-impairing 
          violation # 287 had not been removed.

               The Commissioner notes that, despite the owner's documented 
          assertion on appeal that violation # 287 had been removed by June 
          10, 1990, HPD inspections conducted over two months later revealed 
          the continuing existence of that violation.

               The Commissioner further notes that violation # 287 was 
          allegedly repaired on June 10, 1990, which was nearly one year 
          prior to the issue date of the Administrator's order being 
          appealed.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner did not make this 
          argument (that violation # 287 had been removed) before the 
          Administrator below.  The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that, 
          as the owner presented this argument for the first time on appeal, 
          despite the fact that it was available to the owner below, the 
          Commissioner cannot consider such a de novo argument on appeal.

               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.: FF530209RO

          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                            
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner