ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HC420146RO
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.: HC420146RO
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NOS.: FF429001BR
LANGTRY MGMT. CO. GH420200BO
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 250 W. 22nd Street, N.Y.C. 10011.
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, GH420200BO was
issued on July 16, 1992. In that order, the Administrator affirmed
the finding of FF429001BR issued February 5, 1993, that the owner
be denied eligibility for a 1992/93 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 argues that it has cleared a sufficient
number of Violations. As alleged proof of this contention, the
owner submits on appeal a copy of a New York City Department of
Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) report of an H.P.D.
inspection made of the subject premises on June 3, 1992, said
report specifying that six non rent-impairing Violations had been
cleared.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
denied.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: HC420146RO
Section 2202.3(h) of the New York City Rent and Eviction
Regulations states that, in order to gain eligibility to raise MBRs
at a given premises for a given cycle, the owner must certify to
the Administrator that 100% of the rent-impairing and 80% of the
non rent-impairing Violations which were of record against the
premises as of one year before the effective date of the order of
eligibility were cleared by six months before the effective date.
The Commissioner notes that several tenants responded to the
owner's application by alleging that services have not been
corrected or maintained.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the evidence presented
by the owner on appeal is persuasive only that the Violations were
cleared in an untimely manner (i.e. by June 3, 1992 at the
earliest.) The Commissioner notes that in the Violation
Certification, filed by the owner, on June 10, 1991, the owner
certified that, as of that date it had cleared a requisite number
of Violations from the subject premises. As the owner contends on
appeal, such Violations were cleared, but the evidence it submits
on appeal does not convince the Commissioner that the Violations
were cleared before June, 1992-approximately one year after the
owner certified that the Violations had already been cleared.
The tenants are advised to file a decrease in service Form, if
so warranted.
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:
LULA M. ANDERSON
Deputy Commissioner
|
