ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GH420241RO
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. GH420241RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO. GD420058OI
RUDD REALTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
PETITIONER
------------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 27, 1992, the above-named landlord filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on August 7, 1992 by
a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as
Apartment 516, 207 West 86th Street, New York, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record relevant to the issues raised by the petition for
administrative review.
The subject landlord filed two separate applications, both
dated April 20, 1992, for a rent increase based on the alleged
installation of new equipment in the subject apartment.
In the order under review herein, the Administrator stated
that:
Information on file at this office
indicates that the harassment
findings, as per Enforcement Case
No. 5097/98-HL, filed against the
Owner/Landlord of the subject
premises have not been removed.
Therefore, pursuant to the Rent
Laws the owner has failed to meet
the necessary requirements for
obtaining a rent increase based
on increased services and/or
new equipment or improvements.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. GH420241RO
In its petition the subject landlord asserts, among other
things, that the Administrator's order under review herein did not
state why the landlord's applications were denied; that Enforcement
Case Nos. 5097/98-HL, which is noted in the Administrator's order,
pertains to only two apartments in the subject building; that the
above-mentioned order of harassment "has no bearing on a rent
increase application relating" to the subject apartment; that as
the subject tenant is utilizing the new equipment "it is arbitrary,
capricious and contrary to law for DHCR to disallow this rent
increase"; that the rent agency has previously issued orders which
granted the landlord's applications to increase the rent of various
housing accommodations in the subject building, and that the issues
in those orders were similar to the issues in this proceeding.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner finds that the
landlord's petition should be denied.
In addition to the orders noted in the Administrator's order
under review herein, the record reflects that since May 4, 1981 the
rent agency has issued several orders which determined that the
landlord of the subject premises was engaging in conduct which
constituted harassment of the tenants residing in the subject
premises.
Based on the outstanding findings of harassment pending
against the subject premises, the Commissioner finds that the
subject landlord is barred from collecting an increase in the
subject tenant's rent.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the 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 be, and the same hereby
is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
