ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GL620182RO
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.: GL620182RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EH620223BO
WEINREB MANAGEMENT (DK624869BR)
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 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.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
