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
|
