DOCKET NUMBERS: ART 10467-K & ARL 10807-K
                                 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
     APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: ART 10467-K
                                         :               ARL 10807-K
       DOROTHY & ADAM MAIORINO,             DRO DOCKET NO.: KC 002148-S
       TENANTS, & JOSEPH 
       SCALOGNA, OWNER     PETITIONERS   : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING TENANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL AND 
                     DISMISSING OWNER'S ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL


     On May 27, 1986  and  June  2,  1986  the  above-named  petitioners  filed
     Administrative Appeals against an order issued on  May  12,  1986  by  the
     District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,  New  York,
     concerning the housing accommodations known as 1922 85th Street, Brooklyn, 
     New York, Apartment B-3.

     The Commissioner deems it appropriate to  consolidate  the  administrative
     appeals for determination under this order and opinion   as  they  involve
     common issues of law and fact.

     The  administrative  appeals  are  being  determined   pursuant   to   the
     provisions of 9 NYCRR 2202.16.

     The issue herein is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator  properly
     determined the tenants' complaint of service reduction.

     A review of the record indicates that on January  23,  1985,  the  tenants
     filed a complaint of service reduction wherein they stated,  in  substance
     and in pertinent part, that the gas stove does not work;  that  there  are
     leaks from the ceilings in the bathroom and living room which have  caused
     water-damage to their personal possessions; that there is inadequate  heat
     and hot water; and that the apartment is infested with roaches  and  mice.
     The tenants further  stated  that  their  apartment  is  subject  to  rent
     control; that they have occupied the apartment since March, 1953; and that 
     their current rent is $193.00 per month.

     On March 8, 1985, the Division mailed a copy of the tenants' complaint  to
     the owner who responded on March 13, 1985, in substance and  in  pertinent
     part, that he provides all services to all apartments;  that  the  tenants
     have no reason for any complaints; that he sent a plumber and a contractor 
     to repair the subject apartment while he was in court with the tenants for 
     nonpayment of rent; that there are no leaks in the apartment;  that  there
     is plenty of heat and hot water;  and  that  there  are  no  mice  in  the
     apartment.



     On May 10, 1985, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's answer  to  the
     tenants.  The tenants replied on May 20, 1985 by submitting,  among  other






     DOCKET NUMBERS: ART 10467-K & ARL 10807-K
     things, a letter dated April 23,  1985  from  the  owner  to  the  tenants
     advising the tenants of the 1985 fuel cost adjustment for  rent-controlled
     apartments and a copy of Part VI, Schedule of Monthly  Rent  Increases  or
     Decreases for Controlled Apartments - Fuel Cost Adjustment 1985, dated 
     April 23, 1985 wherein the owner indicated  the  subject  apartment  as  a
     qualifying  rent-controlled  apartment  and  the  tenants  herein  as  the
     residents.

     On November 6, 1985,  an  inspector  visited  the  subject  apartment  and
     reported that the stove did not have a door on the broiler; that there was 
     no handle on the oven door; that there were three knobs missing  from  the
     stove; that the ceiling and walls in the bathroom had  been  repaired  but
     not painted; that the living room leak was  not  repaired;  that  the  hot
     water temperature was  adequate;  and  that  there  was  no  exterminating
     service being provided and no signs posted in the hallway.

     On March 21, 1986, the District Rent Administrator issued an  order  which
     reduced the maximum legal rent for the subject  apartment  by  $13.00  per
     month pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations
     based upon the physical inspection of November  6,  1985.   The  following
     conditions in need of repair were listed in the order: 1) stove  does  not
     have a door on the broiler, also no handle on the oven  door;  2)  missing
     knobs on the stove; 3)  living  room  water  seepage  in  ceiling;  4)  no
     exterminating services being provided.

     An entry dated May 12, 1986 on the Progress Sheet  of  Examiner  indicates
     that the owner visited the public information offices of the Division  and
     stated that the District Rent Administrator's  order  of  March  21,  1986
     incorrectly described the subject apartment as a rent-controlled  unit  in
     that the tenants were rent-stabilized; and  that  the  owner  requested  a
     corrected order reflecting the true status of the subject apartment.

     On May 12,  1986,  the  District  Rent  Administrator  issued  the   order
     appealed herein.  Said order reduced the rent for the subject apartment to 
     the level in effect prior  to  the  last  rent  guideline  increase  which
     commenced before the effective date of  the  order,  such  rent  reduction
     being effective as of April 1, 1985, the first rent payment date after the 
     Division informed  the  owner  of  the  tenants'  complaint,  pursuant  to
     Sections 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.  Said  order
     cited the same conditions in need of repair as were cited in the order  of
     March 21, 1986.  It was noted in the order that said order  corrected  and
     superceded the order issued on March 21, 1986. 

     On appeal, the petitioner-tenants allege, in substance, that the  District
     Rent Administrator's correcting order of May 12, 1986 should  be  reversed
     and the original order of March 21,  1986  should  be  reinstated  as  the
     subject apartment is subject to rent control; and that the owner's  Report
     of Vacancy Decontrol under Docket  No.  KC  003608-SD  contains  incorrect
     information.  The tenants submitted with their  appeal  various  documents
     indicating their residence at the subject apartment since  prior  to  June
     30, 1971. 



     On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges, in substance,  that  the  tenants
     deliberately damaged the apartment for  the  purpose  of  getting  a  rent
     reduction and bringing lawsuits against the owner; that  the  tenants  are
     liars; that they are abusing the system because they wa t  to  live  rent-
     free; and that the tenants always refuse access to  workmen  who  come  to






     DOCKET NUMBERS: ART 10467-K & ARL 10807-K
     repair the apartment.

     After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of  record  the
     Commissioner is of the opinion that  the  tenants'  administrative  appeal
     should be granted and that the owner's  administrative  appeal  should  be
     dismissed.

     The  evidence  of  record  indicates  that  the  owner  did  not  file  an
     administrative appeal against the District Rent Administrator's order of 
     March 21, 1986 within thirty-five days after the date of issuance of  said
     order in accordance with the provisions of either  9  NYCRR  2208.2  or  9
     NYCRR 2529.2.  Subsequent to the expiration of the thirty-five day period, 
     the owner appeared at the offices of the Division and requested  that  the
     District Rent Administrator issue a correcting order in which the  subject
     apartment's stat s  would  be  revised  from  rent-controlled   to   rent-
     stabilized.  On May 12, 1986, the District Rent Administrator issued  such
     correcting order.  The substance of the order remained the same, i.e. that 
     a physical inspection revealed that the owner had failed to provide and/or 
     maintain certain specified services required under either rent control  or
     rent stabilization.  The owner filed  an  appeal  against  the  correcting
     order.

     The Commissioner finds that the owner's administrative  appeal  should  be
     dismissed as not having been timely filed within thirty-five days of March 
     21, 1986, the issuance date of the first order.   Where  a  District  Rent
     Administrator issues a correcting  order  of  an  earlier  order  and  the
     correction does not affect the substance of  the  proceeding,  the  second
     order does not give the party aggrieved by the first order, who had failed 
     to appeal the first order, a new right to file  an  administrative  appeal
     (Accord: Administrative  Review  Docket  No.  CB  220314-RO).   Since  the
     correction involved herein, a  revision  of  the  status  of  the  subject
     apartment, did not affect the substance of the order, that being a finding 
     of service reduction, the owner's right to file an  administrative  appeal
     was not revived.

     Moreover, the evidence of  record  indicates  that  the  correcting  order
     should be revoked. The tenants have submitted competent evidence of  their
     continuous occupancy of the subject apartment  since  prior  to  June  30,
     1971, and no other basis for decontrol  has  been  offered.   One  of  the
     documents submitted was prepared by this owner on April 23, 1985 and lists 
     these tenants and the subject apartment as rent-controlled.   In  view  of
     the foregoing, the Commissioner further finds that the correcting order of 
     May 12, 1986 should be revoked and the original order of  March  21,  1986
     should be reinstated and affirmed.
                                                   
     The owner may apply for a restoration of  the  rent  upon  restoration  of
     required services.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Rent  and  Eviction
     Regulations for New York City, it is

     ORDERED, that the owner's administrative appeal be, and  the  same  hereby
     is, dismissed; that the tenants' administrative appeal be,  and  the  same
     hereby is, granted; that the District Rent Administrator's  order  of  May
     12, 1986 be, and the same hereby is, revoked; and that the  District  Rent
     Administrator's order of March 21,  1986  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
     affirmed.

     ISSUED:






     DOCKET NUMBERS: ART 10467-K & ARL 10807-K















                                                                            
                                                       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