ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FK230022RT
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.: FK230022RT
DISTRICT RENT
VARIOUS TENANTS ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EI220196BO
(DL220342BR)
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodations known as 3096 Brighton 6th Street, various
apartments, Brooklyn, 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, EI220196BO was
issued on October 11, 1991. In that order, the Administrator
revoked the finding of DL220342BR, issued August 30, 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 the proceeding under appeal herein the owner
submitted proof to the Administrator that, contrary to the finding
of DL220342BR the owner had cleared a sufficient number of
violations from the subject premises in order to gain for himself
eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1990/91. The
Administrator concurred in this finding and reversed its earlier
order denying eligibility. The tenants then submitted the instant
appeal before the Commissioner.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FK230022RT
On appeal the tenants charge that there is an outstanding
order reducing rents at the subject premises, and that the
Administrator was therefore in error in granting the owner
eligibility to raise rents.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
be denied.
On appeal the tenants named CJ230032B as the outstanding rent
reduction order. An examination of the record discloses that this
order was issued on July 6, 1989, and that the Administrator found
therein various building-wide violations including (but not limited
to) defects in elevator service. The Administrator thereupon
ordered a rent reduction at the subject premises.
The owner appealed the Administrator's decision, to the
Commissioner under docket #DH230390RO. In an order issued on
October 9, 1991 the Commissioner granted the owner's appeal in part
and remanded the proceeding to the Administrator. The Commissioner
notes that the Commissioner ordered (inter alia) that "...The
automatic stay of...a...rent abatement is...continued until a new
order is issued upon remand..."
The Commissioner is thus of the opinion that the tenants were
correct in their allegation made at appeal that there was a rent
reduction order outstanding against the subject premises as of the
effective date (January 1, 1990) of the Administrator's order being
appealed herein. The Commissioner however, does not agree with the
tenants' further allegation that, inasmuch as there was a rent
reduction order outstanding against the subject premises the owner
should therefore be denied eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject
premises.
The fact that there is a rent-reducing order outstanding
against the subject premises does not bar the owner of those
premises from eligibility to raise MBRs. The owner is, however,
barred from collecting the MBR increase pending the issuance of an
order of rent restoration, at which time the MBR increase becomes
collectible prospectively only.
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.: FK230022RT
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|