STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

     APPEAL OF                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                            :  DOCKET NO. AL710247RT
            VARIOUS TENANTS                    DRO DOCKET NO. NHEMP86S1503/1591OR  
                        PETITIONER          :

                                UPON RECONSIDERATION

     On December 2, 1986, the above named petitioner-tenants filed a Petition for 
     Administrative Review against an order issued on November 20, 1986, by the 
     Rent Administrator, 50 Clinton Street, Hempstead, New York concerning housing 
     accommodations known as various apartments, 380 Front Street, Hempstead, New 
     York., wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the owner's application 
     for restoration of rents should be granted.

     The rents had been reduced on July 28, 1986, under docket number NHEMP86S330 
     /416B, wherein the Administrator found that the owner had failed to have (1) 
     superintendent or other responsible person on the premises for emergency 
     repairs or work; (2) all intercoms working properly; (3) adequate lighting in 
     the parking lot; and (4) proper security locks on front and back doors.

     In August of 1986 the owner filed a petition for administrative review 
     (ARL13327N) against the reduction.  The petition was denied on March 17, 
     1988.  However, on September 29, 1989, after an Article 78 Proceeding, the 
     petition was granted in part upon reconsideration to the extent of deleting 
     the parking lot lighting from the rent reduction order and changing the 
     effective date of the rent reduction (from April 1, 1986 to August 1, 1986).

     Also in August of 1986, the owner filed an application for restoration of 
     rent based on restoration of services.  This was granted on November 20, 
     1986, i.e., long before the 1989 order eliminated the parking lot lighting as 
     a factor in the rent reduction.

     The tenants' appeal herein is of the November 20, 1986 rent restoration was 
     filed December 2, 1986.  In an order issued January 7, 1992 (AL710247RT) the 
     rent restoration order was revoked based on the finding on appeal that in 
     fact the lighting in the parking lot was still inadequate based on a report 
     which had been submitted by the owner to the Administrator.

     On February 11, 1992, the owner requested reconsideration of the January 7, 
     1992 order.  That request was granted on February 14, 1992, based on the fact 
     that the revocation of the restoration of rent had been based on a finding 

          DOCKET NO.:  AL710247RT

     that the parking lot lighting was inadequate.  More specifically, since the 
     September 29, 1989 order (ARL13327N) had retroactively deleted lighting as a 
     factor in the original rent reduction, the lighting was beyond the scope of 
     review when the January 7, 1992 order was issued.  Thus the revocation was an 
     impermissible collateral attack on the September 29, 1989 order, an order 
     which was never appealed.

     The order granting reconsideration gave the tenants twenty days to respond to 
     the issues raised by the owner's request for reconsideration.  In response 
     thereto the tenants' representative stated that the rent had never been 
     reduced and that the owner "owes us about four (4) months of reductions."    
     However, the tenants' representative did not respond to the substance of the 
     owner's request for reconsideration.

     Based on the above, petition number AL710247RT will hereby be reconsidered, 
     without reference to the issue of lighting.

     The issue in this appeal is whether the rent restoration for the services of 
     superintendent and intercoms was valid.

     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 rent restoration order found, based on a DHCR inspection, that all 
     intercoms were working.  On appeal the tenants assert that the intercoms 
     still do not work and that the inspection was defective since 90% of the 
     tenants were allegedly at work during the inspection.  (The inspection report 
     states the inspector arrived at the subject premises at 4:30 on a weekday but 
     does not indicate when he left.  The report states that all the intercoms 
     checked by the inspector were working.)

     Regarding the superintendent, the owner alleged that a new superintendent had 
     been hired.  On appeal the tenants do not deny that the named individual 
     lived on the premises but instead claim, without proof, that he is not 
     qualified for the job.

     The petitioners do not dispute that the door-lock service has been restored.  
     As noted above, the tenants' allegations regarding the parking lot lighting 
     is beyond the scope of this appeal.

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

     The tenants' allegation that 90% of the tenants were at work during the 
     inspector is unproved.  More importantly, even if it were true that 90% of 
     the apartments had no tenant or spouse or other family member available 
     throughout the inspection period which commenced at 4:30 p.m. on a weekday, 
     DHCR policy has long been that inspections of intercoms can be done by means 
     of representative sampling when, as here, there are a large number of 
     apartments.  (The subject building has over a hundred apartments.)  

          DOCKET NO.:  AL710247RT

     Therefore, even if 90% of the apartments' intercoms could not be tested, the 
     remaining apartments would still constitute a sufficient sample.  The 
     inspector found all tested intercoms to be working properly.  Accordingly the 
     Commissioner hereby finds that the Administrator properly found that the 
     intercom service had been restored.

     Regarding the superintendent, it is undisputed that the owner did hire a 
     live-in superintendent.  The Commissioner hereby finds that the tenants' 
     unsubstantiated and subjective allegation on appeal that he is not qualified 
     is insufficient to revoke the Administrator's rent restoration.  Accordingly, 
     the restoration is hereby affirmed with respect to this service as well.  
     Therefore, since the other two services are either beyond the scope of this 
     appeal or conceded by the tenants to have been restored, the Administrator's 
     rent restoration order is hereby affirmed.

     Regarding the tenant representative's statement in response to the tenant's 
     request for reconsideration that the owner did not reduce rent and owes the 
     tenant for four (sic) months of reduced rent, the Commissioner notes the 

               (1)  ARL13327N, pursuant to court order, changed 
                    the effective day of the rent reduction from 
                    April 1, 1986 to August 1, 1986.  Since the 
                    rent restoration order was effective as of 
                    September 1, 1986, the five (sic) month period 
                    of the rent reduction was reduced to one 

               (2)  If the owner failed to reduce the rent for one 
                    month the tenants can file overcharge com 
                    plaints.  The enforcement of the rent reduc 
                    tion is beyond the scope of the appeal.

     Finally, the Commissioner notes that prior order number AL710247RT, which is 
     hereby being reconsidered, stated that:  

               "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 superin 
               tendent service."

     On reconsideration herein the Commissioner has considered the record de novo 
     and reached the same conclusion regarding the intercoms.  However, regarding 
     superintendent services the present order finds that the record was not 
     inconclusive but that on the whole it supported the finding of the Adminis 
     trator.  The Commissioner notes that since the prior order revoked the rent 
     restoration based solely on the parking lot lighting, it was not necessary to 
     make any finding regarding the superintendent in the prior order.  This is 
     because under Stabilization a rent cannot be restored if even one of the 
     decreases in services has not been rectified.  Accordingly, the statement in 
     the prior order regarding the superintendent was mere dicta and the 
     Commissioner is in no way bound thereby in determining the merits of this 

          DOCKET NO.:  AL710247RT

     petition upon reconsideration.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act and 
     Regulations, it is

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and the Rent 
     Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed as modified 
     previously under Docket Number ARL13327N.


                                                    JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                    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