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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: GF620101RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
               BLASER ET AL. TIC                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
               MARVIN LOW, MANAGING AGENT         NO.: EL620009BO


               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 3000 Valentine Avenue, Apts. 1F, 2A, 3D & 
          4H, 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, EL620009BO was 
          issued on June 5, 1992.  In that order, the Administrator affirmed 
          the finding of DL621713BR, issued November 29, 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 asserts that it cleared a sufficient 
          number of violations from the subject premises in order to gain it 
          eligibility for MBR increases.  As proof of this assertion the 
          owner submits on appeal two Affidavits from a licensed architect.  
          In the first Affidavit, dated October 12, 1989 the affiant 
          testified that, based on a personal investigation of the premises 
          on October 11, 1989, all of the 'B' and 'C' type violations of 
          record against the subject premises had been cleared.  In the 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GF620101RO

          second affidavit, dated August 16, 1990 the identical affiant 
          testified that, based on a personal investigation of the subject 
          premises on that day, "All of the Rent Impairing and 80%" of the 
          non rent-impairing violations of record against the subject 
          premises had been cleared. 

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

               The Commissioner notes that the owner first filed copies of 
          the above-mentioned Affidavits with the Administrator during 
          earlier stages of the instant proceeding.

               According to Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations the owner must,to receive eligibility to raise 
          MBRs at a specific premises must certify to the Administrator that 
          80% of the non rent-impairing and 100% of the rent-impairing 
          violations of record have been cleared.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the instant owner has 
          not made such a certification.

               As noted above, the owner submitted Affidavits from a licensed 
          architect in which Affidavits the architect testified, variously 
          that all 'B' and 'C' type violations had been cleared and that 100% 
          of the rent-impairing and 80% of the non rent-impairing violations 
          had been cleared.

               The Commissioner first notes that a violation's designation as 
          'B' or 'C' is irrelevant to the Administrator in deciding whether 
          to grant eligibility.  The 'B' and 'C' designations are used by the 
          City of New York in its J-51 Tax Abatement Program.  The architect
          noted as much in his October 12, 1989 Affidavit.

               More importantly, the Commissioner notes that the architect 
          did not itemize which non rent-impairing violations were cleared in 
          his August 16, 1990 Affidavit, but merely made a statement that 
          80%of the non rent-impairing violations against the subject 
          premises were cleared.  The Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
          owner was put on notice that, to be accepted by the Administrator 
          as proof of violation clearance, an architect's affidavit must 
          itemize the violations and thus specify which of the various non 
          rent-impairing violations of record were cleared.  An examination 
          of the file reveals that the "Instruction Highlights" printed on 
          the back of the Violation Certification submitted by the owner on 
          June 27, 1989 reads, in pertinent part:

                    "Use of Licensed Architects and/or Engineers

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GF620101RO

                    Affidavits from licensed architects...which
                    itemize (emphasis added) each pending 
                    violation...will be accepted."

               As noted above, the architect did not itemize the specific non 
          rent-impairing violations which comprised the 80% of non rent- 
          impairing violations allegedly cleared by the owner.  The  
          Commissioner is thus of the opinion that, having been duly notified 
          of the requirements for an architect's affidavit to be considered 
          acceptable evidence, and having failed to fulfill those 
          requirements, the owner thus failed to certify to the Administrator 
          that the requisite number of violations had been cleared, and that 
          the Administrator was therefore correct in denying the owner 
          eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 1990/91.

               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