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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: GL620182RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EH620223BO
                WEINREB MANAGEMENT                     (DK624869BR)


               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1205 College Avenue, various apartments, 
          Bronx, 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, EH620223BO was 
          issued on November 27, 1992.  In that order, the Administrator 
          affirmed the finding of DK624869BR, 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 presents an Affidavit from the 
          "supervisor" (sic) of the subject premises,in which the affiant 
          testifies that he is "...familiar with the (application) filed for 
          the 1992/93 (emphasis added) rent increase.  This appears under 
          docket # FF622793BR...I personally supervised the removal of 100% 
          of the rent impairing violations and at least 80% of the non rent 
          impairing violations...".  The Affidavit is dated August 24, 1992.  

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

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GL620182RO

               As the owner is aware, to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at a 
          premises the owner must certify to the Administrator that 100% of 
          the rent-impairing and at least 80% of the non rent-impairing 
          violations of record against the premises as of one year before the 
          effective date of the order of eligibility have been cleared as of 
          six months before the effective date.

               In the instant proceeding the record date is January 1, 1989 
          and the deadline for violation clearances is July 1, 1989.  

               A List of Pending Violations (LPV) discloses that as of 
          January 1, 1989 there were nine rent-impairing and 183 non-rent 
          impairing violations of record against the subject premises.  The 
          owner was therefore obliged to clear all nine rent-impairing 
          violations and at least 146 (80% of 183) non rent-impairing 
          violations by June 30, 1989.

               An inspection of the subject premises conducted on August 11 
          and 16, 1989 by the New York City Department of Housing 
          Preservation and Development (HPD) discloses that, of the 
          violations originally listed on the LPV, an insufficient number had 
          been removed so as to gain the owner eligibility to raise MBRs at 
          the subject premises for 1990/91.  An HPD inspection conducted on 
          July 2, 1992 discloses similar findings.

               In accordance with DHCR policy and procedures a 
          superintendent's Affidavit (such as the one submitted by the owner 
          on appeal), in order to be acceptable by the Administrator as 
          evidence of violation clearance must specify the violation 
          allegedly cleared (using the violation # given on the LPV).  
          Additionally, the superintendent's Affidavit can only be used as 
          evidence of the clearance of specific violations.  These violations 
          include those relating to apartment access, routine replacements 
          (doorknobs, locks, hinges, broken glass, electrical switches, 
          pieces of tile, carpet, light bulbs, exit and entrance signs), 
          routine repairs (leaky faucets, walls, drainpipes, window glass, 
          door trim and toilet tanks) the painting of a room or of an 
          apartment and removal of debris and encumbrances.  

               The Commissioner notes that several of the violations named in 
          the LPV (i.e. vermin infestation) were not among the listed types 
          of violations to whose clearance a superintendent can testify.

               The Commissioner further notes that by its references to the 
          1992/93 MBR Cycle and to Administrator's docket # FF622793BR (which 
          concerns the owner's application for eligibility to raise MBRs at 
          the subject premises for the 1992/93 MBR cycle) the Affidavit 
          submitted by the owner on review was intended to prove violation 

          clearance for the 1992/93 MBR cycle.  As such, the Commissioner 
          cannot consider the Affidavit as evidence that the owner has timely 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GL620182RO

          cleared violations in order to gain eligibility for itself to raise 
          MBRs at the subject premises for 1990/91.

                The Commissioner is of the opinion that, notwithstanding the 
          above-listed objections the Affidavit, considered in the most 
          favorable light for the owner is only probative of the contention 
          that violations were cleared by August 24, 1992 (over seven months 
          after the conclusion of the 1990/91 MBR Cycle and over three years 
          after the July 1, 1989 "deadline").  As such the Commissioner could 
          only consider such repairs to have been made on an untimely basis.

               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.


                                             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