ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430125RO

                                 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.: FG430125RO
           SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION
           C/O ROSENBERG & ESTIS P.C.             DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EI420224BO
                                                       (DK423698BR)
                                   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 251 West 81st Street, 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, EI420224BO was 
          issued on May 31, 1991. In that order, the Administrator affirmed 
          the finding of DK423698BR 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.

               (In response to the owner's assertion at Challenge below that 
          a requisite number of violations at the subject premises had been 
          removed, the Administrator ordered a D.H.C.R. inspection of the 
          subject premises.  That inspection disclosed that various 
          violations had not been removed, and served as the basis for the 
          Administrator's decision in EI420224BO).


















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430125RO

               On appeal, the owner reiterates the arguments it made at 
          Challenge and includes various documentary evidence, including a 
          copy of a report of inspections of the subject premises performed 
          on August 27 and August 29, 1989 by the New York City Department of 
          Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) as well as a letter from 
          a licensed architect.  The HPD report submitted by the owner is a 
          copy of the HPD inspection report relied on by the Administrator in 
          denying the owner eligibility under Docket # DK423698BR.

               The owner argues on appeal that the List of Pending violations 
          (LPV) found a total of eight non rent impairing violations of 
          record at the subject premises. The owner further argues that the 
          HPD inspection revealed that four of those violations had been 
          removed.

               The owner additionally argues that, of the four remaining non 
          rent-impairing violations three of them are of a "recurring" nature 
          and/or are "tenant induced," and thus cannot be used to deny 
          eligibility to the owner.

               The architect's letter submitted by the owner on review 
          contains the arguments that all of the non rent impairing 
          violations had been repaired.  This observation is based on the 
          architect's visit to the subject premises.

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

               What is at issue is whether evidence presented by the owner on 
          appeal is sufficient to overcome the Administrator's finding that 
          the owner should be denied eligibility, due to its failure to 
          remove a sufficient number of violations from the subject premises.

               Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations states that, in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs 
          at a given premises for a given cycle, the owner must certify to 
          the Administrator that 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the 
          none rent-impairing violatins which were of record against the 
          premises as of one year before the effective date of the order of 
          eligibility were cleared by six months before the effective date. 










               In the instant proceeding, the LPV discloses that there were 
          eight non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG430125RO

          premises.  Accordingly, the owner had to remove six (8 X 80% = 6.4) 
          of those violations in order to receive eligibility.  The HPD 
          inspections of August 27 and 29, 1989 revealed that the owner had 
          failed to clear the requisite number of violatins by those dates.

               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 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                          
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON
                                             Deputy Commissioner