DOCKET NO.:  EL420162RO
                            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. EL420162RO
                                               DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
             ARTHUR SOYBEL                     DOCKET NO. CJ420062BT
                                           :             (BL422299BR)
                            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 599  
     West End Avenue, Apts. 2A, 3A, 12A, PHE, New York, NY.

     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.

     A tenant residing at the subject premises filed with the Administrator 
     a Challenge to the order granting the owner eligibility to raise 
     Maximum Base Rents (MBRs) at the subject premises for the 1988/89 
     cycle, said order issue on August 9, 1988 under the Docket # BL422299 
     BR.   Based on the tenant's Challenge, the Administrator issued the 
     order under review herein on November 16, 1988 under Docket #CL420062 
     BT, in which order the Administrator revoked the owner's eligibility.  
     In that order the Administrator determined that the owner had failed 
     to meet the violation requirements in order to qualify for an MBR 
     increase.  The Administrator also found that violation item # 320 had 
     not been cleared.  

     On appeal the owner contends that violation # 320 by its nature 
     (failure to place a sign in the lobby designating the location of a key 
     to the boiler room) "did not affect the use of (any of the four subject 
     apartments) in any way and the tenants had full enjoyment of their 
     apartments."  As proof that violation # 320 has been cleared, the owner 
     includes with his appeal a copy of an Affidavit of the Managing Agent 
     of the subject premises.  In the Affidavit (dated November 28, 1990), 
     the Agent testifies that he became Managing Agent on May 1, 1987, and 
     that during that month he noted the lack of a sign and replaced it.


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

     On September 20, 1990, the New York City Department of Housing 







         DOCKET NO.:  EL420162RO


     Preservation and Development (HPD) conducted an inspection of the 
     subject premises.  This inspection revealed that the owner had failed 
     to clear a sufficient number of violations from the subject premises 
     in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs at the subject premises for 
     the 1988/89 cycle.

     The owner's argument on appeal was that the persistence of violation 
     #320 was irrelevant to the tenants' use of their own apartments; and 
     that as the owner of the co-op apartments he could not be held 
     responsible for such violations.

     The HPD inspection report is the best evidence as to the status of 
     violation #320; and the Commissioner is of the opinion that violation 
     #320 was, despite the evidence offered by the owner on appeal not 
     timely cleared.  The fact that the housing accommodations in question 
     are under co-op ownership does not change the requirements for MBR 
     eligibility.

     The Commissioner notes that in her Challenge below, the tenant raised 
     various questions concerning the amount of the owner's MBR increase.  
     The instant proceeding is concerned only with the owner's eligibility 
     to raise MBRs at the subject premises and not with the amount of the 
     increase, nor with the computation of the increase.  The tenant is 
     advised to request a Rent Registration Update from this agency if still 
     in doubt about her legal rent.  For more information she can call (718) 
     739-6400.

     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