STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : SJR NO. 6774
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
: DOCKET NO, GJ220135RO
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INC., DRO DOCKET NOS. (FF222357BR)
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above named authorized owner representative filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing accommoda
tions known as 601 79th Street, various apartments, Brooklyn, New York. The
owner further brought an Article 78 mandamus action in this matter on the
theory of deemed denied.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered all the issues raised by the petition.
The Administrator's order being appealed; GG220017BO was issued on September
11, 1992. In that order, the Administrator affirmed the finding of
FF222357BR issued on July 8, 1992, that the owner be denied eligibility for
a 1992/93 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, specifically that the owner had not submitted
sufficient documentation of the removal of 80% of the 46 non rent-impairing
and 100% of the 4 non-rent impairing violation contained in the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD inspection report as
of January 1, 1991) by six months prior to the effective date of the Order of
eligibility (i.e. by July 1, 1991).
On appeal the owner contends that every violation in the building has been
corrected, and that adequate documentation of said correction has been
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Eviction Regulations states that, in
order to be eligible for an MBR rent increase an owner must clear both 100%
of all rent impairing violations and 80% of all non-rent impairing violations
which are of record one year before the effective date of the order of
eligibility by no later than six months before the effective date.
DOCKET NO.: GJ220135RO
In the instant case, 100% of the four rent impairing violations and 80% of
the 46 non-rent impairing violations at the subject premises which were of
record as of January 1, 1991 must have been repaired by July 1, 1991.
In finding that the owner of the subject premises had not complied with the
agency criteria for certification of violation removal, the Administrator
relied on a list of pending violations (LPV) issued by the HPD reflecting all
violations outstanding against the subject premises thru the end of 1990.
The Administrator evaluated the evidence of violation removal submitted by
the owner. The Administrator determined that there was insufficient
violation clearance proof and therefore a failure to meet violation criteria.
The owner in both his earlier challenge of MBR denial and the subject PAR has
submitted similar evidence regarding violation clearance.
Said evidence consists primarily of undated sign-offs by the building
superintendent Mustaf Rugova claiming that listed violation items had been
rectified and finished to his satisfaction. The superintendent signature is
on said documents which are neither sworn to or affirmed.
The owner's submitted violation clearance evidence only contains a tenant's
signature of acknowledgment for two of the 46 non rent impairing violations
(ie violation 105 and 106).
The owner in his challenge and PAR has also submitted bills on the superin
tendent's letterhead (listing the subject building's address as his business
address) for renewal of many of the violations as well as cancelled checks of
payments to the super for purportedly removing; violations.
There are also bills, proposals and cancelled checks for removal of
a) Sure Foundation Inc. re non-rent impairing
b) B & C Contracting re non-rent impairing viola
c) Real Construction re non-rent impairing viola
tion #117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124.
Two tenants submitted answers to the owner's petition. The tenant of Apt. B-
8 complained that a MBR increase of 7 1/2% would be a burden to him as he is
90 years old and living on social security.
The tenant in Apt. A-19 complained of a leak in the bathroom ceiling
originating in January 1993 (after the subject MBR cycle certification date).
Said tenant also complained of the hardships of a senior citizen paying a MBR
Agency guidelines provide that an affidavit from a superintendent can be
accepted for only the items listed below:
DOCKET NO.: GJ220135RO
- Apartment access
- Replacement of door knobs, locks, hinges,
broken glass electrical switches, and pieces
of tile, carpet etc. light bulbs, exit and
- Repair of leaky faucets, walls, drain pipes,
window glass, door trim, and toilet tanks.
Painting of a room and/or apartment.
- Removal of debris and encumbrances.
There were four rent impairing violations as of record January 1, 1991. The
owner was obligated to clear 100% of the rent impairing violations.
The record contains no evidence of the owner removing rent impairing
violation #149 which requires the filing of a registration statement of the
building with NYC Department of HPD.
Regarding rent impairing violation #107 the super properly signed-off as it
involved the flushometer in Apt. B15.
However the super under agency guidelines can not sign off for violation
#133, which involves a defective flush pipe in Apt. B8. Removal of said
violation required an independent contractor, architect, or engineer.
Further the super under agency guidelines could also not sign off for rent
impairing violation #126 which required adequate supply of hot water for Apt.
E6. Removal of said violation also required an independent contractor,
architect or engineer.
Accordingly the record is clear that there is insufficient violation
clearance proof regarding three of the rent impairing violations namely #126,
#133, and #149.
It should be noted regarding tenant complaints of new violations occurring
after the subject MBR cycle, that the subject tenant(s) may file an
application for rent reduction due to service reduction.
Further those elderly tenants who are eligible may file with NYC's SCRIE
program for rent assistance.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations, it is,
DOCKET NO.: GJ220135RO
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA