AR Docket No. AL 710247-RT
                                  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.: AL 710247-RT

             VARIOUS TENANTS,                     DRO DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  N-HEMP-86-S-1503/1591-OR
                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   

                  ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
                       AND REVOKING THE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

          On  December  2,  1986  the  above-named   petitioner   filed   an
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on November 20, 1986 
          by the District Rent Administrator (50 Clinton Street,  Hempstead,
          N.Y.) concerning the housing accommodations  known  as  380  Front
          Street, Hempstead,  New  York,  various  apartments,  wherein  the
          Administrator granted the owner's rent restoration application.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing its application 
          in August of 1986, in which it  certified  that  it  had  restored
          services for which a rent reduction order was issued  in  July  of
          1986.  The owner stated that (1) there was a responsible person on 
          the premises available for emergency  repairs  or  work;  (2)  the
          intercoms are  functioning  properly;  (3)  adequate  lighting  is
          provided in the parking lot; and (4) the front and rear door locks 
          function properly.   Numerous  tenants  objected  to  the  owner's
          application, stating in substance, that (I) there was  no  24-hour
          superintendent on the premises; (II) the intercom  does  not  work
          properly; and (III) the lighting in the parking lot is inadequate.

          On October 16, 1986, a physical inspection of the subject premises 
          was conducted by this Division.  The inspection  report  disclosed
          that the lighting in the parking lot was inadequate and  that  the
          subject building does not have a live-in super.

          Subsequently,  the  owner  submitted  to  the   Administrator   an
          evaluation by a  lighting  contractor  of  the  exterior  security
          lighting at the subject premises, done  at  the  owner's  request.
          This  evaluation  (dated  October  20,  1986)  stated   that   the
          recommended footcandle level for a self-parking  area  is  1,  and
          that the footcandle levels found at the subject parking  lot  were
          as  follows:   "The  rear  parking  lot  shows  different   levels
          depending on the distance from the building.  At the perimeter  of
          the building, the levels are 1-2 F.C.  In the middle  of  the  lot
          the range is .2-1F.C.  The rear of the lot shows a reading of 
          .2-.5 F.C.  The extension in the rear of the lot shows .1 F.C."

          In addition, the owner  submitted  a  letter  stating  that  since
          August there has been a new superintendent (a Mr. Conners) in  the
          building who would be moving into a new apartment in November,  at
          which time he would have a telephone number.







          AR Docket No. AL 710247-RT

          The  District  Rent  Administrator's   order,   appealed   herein,
          determined that  based  upon  the  evidence  in  the  record,  the
          landlord has restored the services in the subject  building.   The
          Administrator  stated,  among  other  things,  that  the  lighting
          contractor's report found that there was adequate lighting in  the
          parking lot.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants contend, in substance, that  (A)
          Mr. Conners is not a qualified super and has stated  so;  (B)  Mr.
          Conners is on the premises just to keep the  building  clean;  (C)
          the DHCR did not reinspect the parking lot lighting  but  accepted
          the report of the Landlord's contractor  despite  having  a  staff
          qualified to inspect; and (D) the intercom  could  not  have  been
          properly inspected since 90% of the tenants were at  work  at  the
          time of inspection.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the  administrative  appeal
          should be granted and the Administrator's order revoked.

          At the outset, the Commissioner notes that the record supports the 
          Administrator's determination with respect to the  restoration  of
          the intercom service, and that it is inconclusive with respect  to
          the restoration of superintendent services.  However,  the  record
          does not support the Administrator's determination concerning  the
          restoration of adequate lighting in  the  parking  lot.   In  this
          connection, the  Commissioner  notes  that  the  DHCR  inspector's
          finding of inadequate lighting is confirmed by the  evaluation  of
          the owner's contractor (submitted by the owner).

          On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it  is  found  that
          the  administrative  appeal  herein  should  be  granted  and  the
          Administrator's order revoked, since restoration of  rent  is  not
          warranted until all services that were the basis for the  decrease
          order have been restored.

          The owner is hereby directed to refund or credit to the tenants in 
          twelve equal monthly installments any excess rent collected  as  a
          result of the Administrator's order,  such  refund  or  credit  to
          commence within 60 days from the date of issuance hereof.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the  applicable  provisions  of  the
          Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974 and  Operational  Bulletin
          84-1, it is








          AR Docket No. AL 710247-RT



          ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is 
          granted; and that the  Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same
          hereby is revoked.

          ISSUED:




                                          ------------------------
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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