ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GF620186RO


                                 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.: GF620186RO

           BLS CO.                                DISTRICT RENT
           MARVIN LOW, MANAGING AGENT             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EH520013BO
                                                       (DL621558BR)
                                   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 190 West 170th 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, EH520013BO was 
          issued on June 5, 1992.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed 
          the finding of DL621558BR, 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, per Section 2202.3(h) of 
          the New York State Rent and Eviction Regulations 80% of the non 
          rent-impairing and 100% of the rent-impairing violations of record 
          at the subject premises have been cleared.  AS alleged proof of 
          this contention the owner submits on appeal an affidavit from a 
          Registered Architect, in which the Architect testifies that the 
          violations were cleared to the extent noted above.  The Architect 
          basis his conclusion on an inspection of the premises he conducted 
          on August 16, 1990.














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GF620186RO



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

               A List of Pending Violations discloses that, as of January 1, 
          1989 (one year before the effective date of the Order of 
          eligibility) there were outstanding against the subject premises 
          seven rent-impairing and 171 non rent-impairing violations.  To 
          conform with the requirements of Section 2202.3(h) the owner was 
          required, in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject 
          premises for 1990/91 to certify that all the rent-impairing and 80% 
          of the non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject 
          premises as of one year before the effective date had been cleared 
          by six months before the effective date.  More specifically, the 
          owner was required to certify that all of the rent-impairing and at 
          least 137 (171 X 80% = 136.8) of the non rent-impairing violations 
          at the subject premises had been cleared by July 1, 1989.

               As noted above, a Licensed Architect's affidavit disclosed 
          that a sufficient number of violations had been cleared so as to 
          gain the owner eligibility for an MBR increase, as noted by the 
          architect in his personal inspection of the subject premises on 
          August 16, 1990.

               An examination of the record discloses a report of an 
          inspection of the subject premises conducted on August 22 and 24, 
          1989 by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and 
          Development (HPD).  This inspection, which the Commissioner notes 
          was conducted over 1 1/2 months after the July 1, 1989 "deadline" 
          for clearing violations, discloses that the owner had failed to by 
          that date clear a sufficient number of rent-impairing or non rent- 
          impairing violations.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the Architect's 
          finding that a sufficient number of violations had been cleared 
          from the subject premises, one year after the HPD inspector found 
          that a sufficient number of violations had not been cleared, is at 
          the most indicative that the remainder of the violations were 
          cleared between August 1989 and August 1990.  As such, the 
          Commissioner must conclude that such repairs, if indeed made, were 
          made later than six months prior to the effective date and were 
          thus made on an untimely basis, and that the Administrator was 
          therefore correct in finding that the owner had failed to clear a 
          sufficient number of violations from the subject premises in order 
          to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 
          1990/91.











          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GF620186RO

               The Commissioner notes that the owner below certified to the 
          Administrator that all of the rent-impairing and at least 80% of 
          the non rent-impairing violations had been cleared by June 19, 
          1989.

               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 

                         






    

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