ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FL530266RO, FG520467RT

                                 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 NOS.: FL530266RO,
                                                               FG520467RT
                                                  
                                                  DISTRICT RENT
            TYVAN HILL CO.-OWNER                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
            OTTO REISMAN-TENANT                   NO.: DG520433BO(BL428169BR)
            
                                 PETITIONERS
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review under docket # FL530266RO of an order issued 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 452 Ft. Washington 
          Avenue, apartment 47 et al., 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, DG520433BO was 
          issued on October 31, 1991.  In that order, the Administrator 
          revoked the finding of BL428169BR, issued June 22, 1989, that the 
          owner be denied eligibility for a 1988/89 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 proceeding under DG520433BO was commenced on 
          July 25, 1989 when the owner served the Administrator with a 
          Challenge of BL428169BR.

               In addition to its finding that the owner had certified to 
          sufficient violation clearance in order to earn eligibility to 
          raise 1988/89 MBRs at the subject premises , an examination of the 
          record reveals the following information about Administrator's 
          order # DG520433BO:  The effective date of the order is January 1, 
          1988.  The order states on its face that "....no MBR order was 
          issued for 1990-91.  This order...applies to the 1988-89 cycle 














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FL530266RO, FG520467RT

          only  (A previous order issued on April 26, 1991 under the 
          identical docket number stated that the owner was eligible for 
          1990/91 MBR rent increases at the subject premises.  The effective 
          date of that order was January 1, 1990.)  The order also stated on 
          its face:  "This order corrects and supersedes the order of 
          eligibility issued April 26, 1991."  (apparently, the Administrator 
          inadvertently on April 26, 1991 issued the order on a "1990/91 MBR 
          order of eligibility" form).

               On appeal, the owner contends that the Administrator was in 
          error in stating in the "corrected order" that no MBR order for 
          1990-91 was issued.  The owner attaches a copy of the April 26, 
          1991 order as proof of its contention.

               The above-captioned petitioner-tenant (tenant), a rent- 
          controlled tenant at the subject premises, timely filed an appeal 
          under docket # FG520467RT of the identical Administrator's order.

               On appeal the tenant contends that, inasmuch as there is an 
          outstanding Administrator's order (issued on April 20, 1988 under 
          docket # BH420062S) reducing rent at the tenant's above-mentioned 
          apartment the owner should thus be barred from increasing 1988/89 
          MBRs for the tenant's apartment.  The owner additionally alleges 
          that a court "stipulation" issued under the docket # L & T 
          122793/90 restricts the owner of the subject premises from raising 
          the rent at the tenant's apartment until 1991. 

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that these petitions should 
          be denied.

               An examination of the record reveals the following:  

               In the instant proceeding, the owner filed a Violation 
          Certification (VC) and Operation & Maintenance & Essential Services 
          Certification (O & M) for the 1988/89 cycle.  There is no evidence 
          in the file that the owner at that time filed a VC or an O & M for 
          the 1990/91 cycle.  

               Discussions with the DHCR staff disclose that an "Order of 
          Eligibility-Maximum Base Rent 1990-91" was mistakenly mailed to the 
          owner on April 26, 1991.  As noted above, the order was reissued on 
          October 31, 1991, in which order the Administrator explicitly 
          stated that the April 26, 1991 order was thereby overruled.  







               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the use of the phrase 
          "corrected order" in the owner's appeal suggests that the owner was 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FL530266RO, FG520467RT

          fully aware that the April 26, 1991 order was explicitly revoked by 
          the October 31, 1991 order.  Any attempt by the owner to argue 
          otherwise is, in the Commissioner's opinion disingenuous.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner was given permission to 
          raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1988/89, effective the first 
          day of the 1988/89 cycle.  The Commissioner is therefore of the 
          opinion that the owner's interest was in no way prejudiced by the 
          Administrator's finding.

               As for the tenant's contentions upon appeal:

               As noted above, the rent reduction order was issued on April 
          20, 1988, and the Administrator granted the owner eligibility to 
          raise MBRs for 1988/89 at the subject premises effective January 1, 
          1988.  As such, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the rent 
          reduction order was issued subsequent to the order of eligibility.  
          The Commissioner notes that to find that the rent reduction order 
          served to exempt the tenant's apartment from 1988/89 MBR increases 
          would give retroactive force to the rent reduction order.  The 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the rent reduction order, 
          issued on April 20, 1988 serves to exempt the tenant's apartment 
          from future orders increasing rent (i.e., those orders issued and 
          effective after April 20, 1988), subject to the elimination of the 
          service reduction inside the apartment.

               The tenant did not submit any documentary evidence (such as a 
          copy of a signed court order) of the court decision he cites on 
          appeal.  The Commissioner thus cannot consider the evidence 
          presented by the owner 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 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA 
                                             Deputy Commissioner