ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GG420141RO
                                  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. GG420141RO 

                                                  DISTRICT RENT
                          RUDD REALTY             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                          MANAGEMENT              NO. GB420062BT 
                          COMPANY,  
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On July 17, 1992, the above-named landlord filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on June 19, 1992 by a 
          Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommodations in the  
          premises known as 225 West 86th Street, New York, New York.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.

               The Administrator issued an order on January 30, 1992 under 
          Docket No. FF426191BR which granted the landlord maximum base rent 
          (M.B.R.) increases for the 1992-1993 period.

               In the tenants' challenge dated February 20, 1992, they 
          asserted, among other things, that the landlord is not eligible for 
          M.B.R. increases as there is an outstanding finding of harassment 
          against the subject premises.

               In the order under review herein, the Administrator revoked 
          the aforementioned 1992-1993 M.B.R. order of eligibility and stated 
          that:  "The owner is not entitled to an order granting maximum base 
          rent increases while a finding of harassment is still in effect."

               In the landlord's petition it asserts, among other things, 
          that the Administrator issued two orders both dated June 19, 1992 
          and both were issued under the same docket number; that one order 
          is entitled "Final Order Denying 1992-93 Maximum Base Rents," and 
          the other one is entitled "Order of Modification, Revocation or 
          Affirmation-Maximum Base Rent Denying 1992-93 Maximum Base Rents"; 
          that the former order lists the mailing address of the tenants as 
          "167 RO-86 MBRS Sent to Tenants"; that the former order does 














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GG420141RO

          not list the individual tenants who received the order; that the 
          latter order lists the mailing address of the tenants as "167 RO-88 
          MBRS sent to Tenants" (Emphasis supplied by petitioner); that the 
          landlord "has no idea,and thus cannot comment on why one Order 
          refers to an RO-86 form while the other form refers to a RO-88 
          form"; that it is not clear which tenant received which order; that 
          the two orders are "defective as to form and on this basis alone, 
          the owner's PAR must be granted"; that the orders fail to 
          specifically state the reason why the 1992-1993 M.B.R. order of 
          eligibility was denied; that the orders do not "state which finding 
          of harassment it is referring to"; that the landlord was deprived 
          of due process in this proceeding; that the landlord did not have 
          notice of the proceeding in which the Administrator revoked the 
          1992-1993 M.B.R. order of eligibility; that the orders do not 
          distinguish between increases in the M.B.R. and the maximum rent, 
          and that the rent agency should have granted the landlord M.B.R. 
          order of eligibility, but deny the increase in the maximum rent 
          until the harassment finding has been removed.

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the 
          landlord's petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator issued the 
          "Order of Modification, Revocation or Affirmation-Maximum Base 
          Rent" to revoke the 1992-1993 M.B.R. order of eligibility after 
          reviewing the issues raised in the aforementioned tenants' 
          challenge.  The Commissioner points out that the above-mentioned 
          order's form number, 'RO-88MBR," is printed on the bottom left-hand 
          side of the order.

               As a result of the revocation of the 1992-1993 M.B.R. order of 
          eligibility, the Commissioner points out that the Administrator    
          issued a "Final Order Denying 1992-1993 Maximum Base Rents."  The 
          Commissioner further points out that the above-mentioned order's 
          form number,"RO-86MBR," is printed on the bottom left-hand side of 
          the order.

               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's issuance of 
          the two above-mentioned orders was proper, and that they were 
          issued in conformity with rent agency policy.

               The record reflects that the rent agency served a copy of the 
          above-mentioned orders on each rent controlled tenant residing at 
          the subject premises.






               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the landlord's 
          knowledge of which tenant was served with which order does not 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GG420141RO

          affect the landlord's ability to appeal the Administrator's orders 
          as the issues in this proceeding affect all of the rent controlled 
          tenants.

               As the subject landlord does not allege that it was not served 
          with the Administrator's orders under review herein, the 
          Commissioner finds that the subject landlord was not denied due 
          process by the issuance of the above-mentioned orders.

               As the Administrator's orders under review herein pointed out 
          that there is an outstanding finding of harassment against the 
          subject building, the Commissioner finds that that constituted a 
          sufficient explanation to the parties as to the Administrator's 
          reason for revoking the landlord's 1992-1993 M.B.R. order of 
          eligibility.

               The record reflects that there has been an outstanding finding 
          of harassment against the subject premises since May 4, 1981.

               The Commissioner issued an order on May 26, 1992 under 
          Enforcement Case No. 4647L which denied the subject landlord's 
          application to terminate the findings of harassment against the 
          subject building.

               The rent agency's records reflect that there has been prior 
          orders issued by the rent agency which had denied the subject 
          landlord rent increases based on an outstanding finding of 
          harassment against the subject premises.

               The Commissioner finds that the subject landlord does not 
          allege, in its petition, that it did not have notice of the rent 
          agency's findings of harassment against the subject building.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the subject landlord 
          has or should have had knowledge of the rent agency's findings of 
          harassment against the subject building.

               Based on the above-mentioned, the Commissioner finds that the 
          fact that the Administrator did not note the docket numbers the 
          harassment findings were issued under did not deprive the subject 
          landlord of due process as the subject landlord is aware or should 
          have been aware of the issues raised in this proceeding.






               The Commissioner points out that the aforementioned tenants' 
          challenge to the 1992-1993 M.B.R.order of eligibility was not an 
          adversarial proceeding between the landlord and the tenants, but 
          was between the rent agency and the tenants, and that the rent 












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GG420141RO

          agency was not required to serve a copy of the tenants' challenge 
          on the landlord.     

               As the Administrator in this proceeding denied the landlord 
          M.B.R. increases for the 1992-1993 period, the subject landlord is 
          not entitled to an increase in the maximum rents for that period.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that it was not necessary for 
          the Administrator to have distinguished between M.B.R. increases 
          and maximum rent increases in the orders under review herein.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that, pursuant to the 
          applicable rent regulations and applicable orders issued by the 
          Courts, it is within the Administrator's discretion to deny the 
          landlord M.B.R. increases when there is an outstanding finding of 
          harassment against that landlord's building.  Accordingly, the 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order under review 
          herein which denied the landlord M.B.R. increases for the 1992-1993 
          period should not be disturbed.

               Based on the above-mentioned, the Commissioner finds that the 
          subject landlord's petition should be denied.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent and Rehabilitation 
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order, issued under Docket No. 
          GB420062BT, be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                     
                                             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