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   :   SJR NO. 6791
     APPEALS OF                                ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                           :   DOCKET NOS. FG420352RT and
       DONNA SINGER and SEVERAL TENANTS                    FG420448RT
       RESIDING AT 410 WEST 24TH STREET,   :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
        NEW YORK, NEW YORK,                    DOCKET NOS. EI410154BO and
                             PETITIONERS   :               DG420510BO
     --------------------------------------X


          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On July 16, 1991, the above-named tenants filed a petition for 
     administrative review (Docket No. FG420352RT) of an order issued on June 
     14, 1991 (Docket No. EI410154BO) by the Administrator concerning various 
     housing accommodations in the premises known as 410 West 24th Street, New 
     York, New York.  On July 23, 1991, the above-named tenants filed a 
     petition for administrative review (Docket No. FG420448RT) of an order 
     issued on June 21, 1991 (Docket No. DG420510BO) by the Administrator, 
     concerning the above-mentioned premises.

     Subsequently, the subject landlord filed a petition in the Supreme Court 
     of the State of New York, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law 
     and Rules, in the nature of an application for a writ of mandamus, 
     requesting that a determination of the petitioners' administrative appeals 
     be issued.  

     After considering the Article 78 petition, the Court issued an order 
     remitting the proceedings to the New York State Division of Housing and 
     Community Renewal (DHCR) for further consideration.

     Since the petitions involve common questions of law and fact, the 
     Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate the proceedings for 
     disposition herein.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has 
     carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues 
     raised by the petitions for administrative review.

     The issues in these proceedings are whether the Administrator should have 
     granted the subject landlord maximum base rent (MBR) increases for the 
     1988-1989 biennial cycle and the 1990-1991 biennial cycle.







          DOCKET NOS.:  FG420352RT 
              FG420448RT
     On June 14, 1991 the Administrator issued the order under review herein, 
     under Docket No. EI410154BO, which granted the landlord MBR increases for 
     the 1990-1991 period, effective January 1, 1990.

     On June 21, 1991 the Administrator issued the order under review herein, 
     under Docket No. DG420510BO, which granted the landlord MBR increases for 
     the 1988-1989 period, effective January 1, 1988.

     On July 16, 1991 the tenants filed a petition, under Docket No. 
     FG420352RT, in which they allege, among other things, that the 
     Administrator's order issued under Docket No. EI410154BO should be revoked 
     as there are diminution of services in the subject building; that the 
     landlord should not be entitled to a retroactive MBR increase as, the 
     tenants state, "violations still existed in building at the time the order 
     was issued"; that the tenants filed with DHCR a complaint of diminution of 
     services, under Docket No. DD430041B; that an inspection of the subject 
     building was conducted by DHCR on June 18, 1991 which, the tenants state, 
     "disclosed that all violations as stated in Docket No. DD430041B still 
     existed at that time"; that some of the violations recorded against the 
     subject building on January 1, 1989 still exist; that as building 
     violations have not been removed the landlord is not entitled to an MBR 
     increase, and that the landlord is not maintaining all essential services 
     in the subject building.

     On July 23, 1991 the tenants filed a petition, under Docket No. 
     FG420448RT, in which they allege, among other things, that the tenants 
     were not given notice of any MBR orders prior to the issuance of the 1990- 
     1991 MBR order of eligibility on June 14, 1991; that the 1988-1989 MBR 
     order of eligibility should not be retroactive to January 1, 1988 as there 
     are violations still pending against the subject building as of early 
     1988; that the subject landlord was not providing essential services to 
     the subject building, and that the 1988-1989 MBR order of eligibility 
     should be revoked.

     After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that both 
     of the tenants' petitions should be denied.

     The record reflects that both the Administrator's orders under review 
     herein were based upon a finding that the subject landlord had met the 
     violation certification requirements, and other requirements for 
     eligibility for an MBR increase for the applicable biennial cycles.

     The record further reflects that the subject landlord did in fact clear 
     the required number of violations to be eligible for the MBR increases for 
     the 1988-1989 and 1990-1991 biennial cycles.

     As the subject landlord has met the requirements for MBR increases for the 
     aforementioned biennial cycles, pursuant to the applicable provisions of 
     the City Rent and Eviction Regulations, the Commissioner finds that it was 
     proper for the Administrator to have retroactively increased the maximum 
     base rents effective on the first day of the aforementioned biennial 
     cycles, i.e., January 1, 1988 and January 1, 1990, respectively.




          DOCKET NOS.:  FG420352RT 
              FG420448RT
     As to the tenants' assertion that the subject landlord is not providing 
     the essential services that were specified in the tenants' service 
     reduction complaint, filed under Docket No. DD430041B, the record reflects 
     that the Administrator issued an order on September 24, 1990 under the 
     above-mentioned docket number, denying the tenants' service reduction 
     complaint, and finding that the landlord was maintaining all of the 
     essential services that were cited in the tenants' complaint.

     The record further reflects that the tenants' filed a petition for 
     administrative review on October 16, 1990 of the above-mentioned 
     Administrator's order.  On February 27, 1991 the Commissioner issued an 
     order under Docket No. EJ410329RT denying the tenants' petition.  In the 
     above-mentioned Commissioner's order, the Commissioner noted that DHCR 
     conducted four separate inspections of the subject building which occurred 
     on November 2, 1989, April 4, 1990, June 20, 1990, and on August 7, 1990. 
     The Commissioner pointed out that the inspection reports noted that the 
     complained of conditions were not as alleged by the tenants.  Based on the 
     four separate inspections, the Commissioner, in the order issued under 
     Docket No. EJ410329RT, found that the Administrator properly determined 
     that the landlord was maintaining services and properly denied the 
     tenants' rent reduction application.

     Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that in this proceeding the record 
     does not support the tenants' assertion that the landlord is not 
     maintaining building-wide essential services as would warrant revocation 
     of the adjustments in the maximum base rents.  However, the Commissioner 
     notes that this order is issued without prejudice to the right of any 
     tenant to file an application with the rent agency for a rent reduction 
     based on the landlord's failure to maintain services if the facts so 
     warrant.

     As to the tenants' assertion that they did not receive notice of these 
     proceedings until they received the Administrator's order issued on June 
     14, 1991, the Commissioner finds that the landlord's applications for the 
     increases in the maximum base rents were not an adversary proceeding 
     between the landlord and the tenants, and that DHCR was not required to 
     serve the tenants copies of the landlord's application for increases in 
     the maximum base rents, and copies of the landlord's challenges to any 
     denial of an MBR order of eligibility.

     The Commissioner further finds that there has been no denial of the 
     tenants' right to due process in this proceeding, as the subject tenants, 
     in these proceedings, had a full opportunity to contest the granting of 
     the landlord's orders of eligibility for MBR increases for the 1988-1989 
     period and the 1990-1991 period.

     Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenants' petitions should be 
     denied.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation Law and the 
     Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is 

     ORDERED, that the tenants' petitions be, and the same are, denied, and 
     that the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are, affirmed; and 
     it is 

     FURTHER ORDERED, that if there are retroactive rents due to the landlord 
     by any of the subject tenants as a result of the Administrator's order 
     issued on June 21, 1991 under Docket No. DG420510BO, which granted the 
     landlord MBR increases for the 1988-1989 period, such retroactive rent may 






          DOCKET NOS.:  FG420352RT 
              FG420448RT
     be payable in equal monthly installments equal in number to the months 
     between January 1, 1988 and June 21, 1991; and it is 

     FURTHER ORDERED, that if there are any  retroactive rents due to the 
     landlord by any of the subject tenants as a result of the Administrator's 
     order issued on June 14, 1991 under Docket No. EI410154BO, which granted 
     the landlord MBR increases for the 1990-1991 period, such retroactive 
     rents may be payable in equal monthly installments equal in number to the 
     number of months between January 1, 1990 and June 14, 1991; and it is 

     FURTHER ORDERED, that if there are any retroactive rents due to the 
     landlord by any tenant who vacates after the issuance of this order, such 
     retroactive rents by that vacating tenant are due immediately.

     ISSUED:


                                                                              
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner 

      
    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name