OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

     APPEAL OF                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                           :   DOCKET NO, GJ220135RO
                            PETITIONER                          GG220017BO


     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 
     violations from:

               a)   Sure Foundation Inc. re non-rent impairing 
                    violation #114.

               b)   B & C Contracting re non-rent impairing viola 
                    tion #116.

               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 
                    entrance signs.

               -    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
                                                     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