Docket Number: BF-130244-RO
                                 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.: BF 130244-RO
                                            :  
             DILIP N. TOLAT,                   DRO DOCKET NO.:  AL  130020-B
          
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On June 24, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a  Petition
        for Administrative Review against an order issued on June 19,  1987,
        by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,  Jamaica,  New  York,  NY,
        concerning the housing accommodations known as  35-54  94th  Street,
        Jackson Heights, New York 11372, wherein the Administrator  found  a
        diminution of building-wide services, ordered rent reduction for the 
        rent controlled tenants and directed the owner to  restore  services
        to all tenants.  

        The applicable law  is  Section  2202.16  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction
        Regulations and 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Code.

        The issue in the appeal is whether  the  Administrator's  order  was
        correct.

        The tenant  commenced the proceedings by filing a complaint alleging 
        a  diminution  of  various  building-wide  services.   The   tenants
        complained that the owner did not provide  a  sufficient  number  of
        garbage cans to place refuse; that there was building-wide roach and 
        rodent infestation; that the public hall windows did not have window 
        guards; that the building back door was  unsafe;  and  that  garbage
        accumulated in the front of the building.

        On January 8, 1987, the owner responded, in substance, that  certain
        conditions were tenant induced.  The  owner  asserted,  among  other
        items, that it provided a sufficient number of garbage cans but that 
        some of the tenants' children looked through the trash bags and that 
        tenants were careless in depositing refuse; that while exterminating 
        services were provided many tenants did  not  properly  clean  their
        apartments, providing breeding grounds for roaches and rodents; that 
        one tenant allowed a dog to soil the common areas,  indicating  that
        court proceedings had been commenced against the tenant.  The  owner
        also submitted a statement from the exterminating contractor, to the 
        effect that it had provided  exterminating  service  for  the  owner
        since 1985.  However, the statement failed to specify the level  and
        frequency of services provided.  The  owner  also  stated  that  the
        building rear door had been fixed, and that  while  all  areas  were
        cleaned frequently, as needed, the tenants did not cooperate in 

        maintaining public areas clean.

        An inspection was conducted in February 6, 1987 by a member  of  the






          Docket Number: BF-130244-RO
        Division's inspection staff.  The inspector reported that there were 
        six (6) garbage cans for the tenants' use, as well as evidence of  a
        large amount of garbage piled on the cans.  The inspector  indicated
        that the number of cans  provided  was  inadequate.   The  inspector
        further reported evidence of roach and rodent infestation, and  that
        no window guards were provided for the  hallway  windows.   However,
        the inspector found no evidence of an unsafe rear exit door  and  no
        evidence of garbage accumulation in the front of the building.

        On June 19, 1987, the Administrator  issued  order  determining  the
        tenants' complaint.  The Administrator reduced  the  rent  for  rent
        controlled  tenants  by  $12.00  based   on   findings   of   excess
        accumulation of garbage around cans ($3.00),  inadequate  amount  of
        garbage cans ($2.00),  roach  and  rodent  infestation  ($4.00)  and
        hallway windows without guards ($3.00).  As the rent stabilized  did
        not request a rent reduction, the owner was only directed to restore 
        the services to the required  level  by  correcting  the  conditions
        specified hereinabove.

        In the petition the owner reiterates that garbage  accumulation  and
        roach and rodent infestation  were  tenant  induced.   However,  the
        petitioner acknowledges that window guards not  previously  provided
        would be installed promptly.

        A copy of the owner's petition was forwarded to  the  tenants,  care
        of the Tenants' Association.   However,  there  is  no  record  that
        answers were filed by or on behalf of any  tenant.

        After careful consideration, the  Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
        that the petition should be denied.

        The inspection confirmed and  the  owner  acknowledged  that  window
        guards for public area window were not provided.

        Despite assertions that areas were cleaned  periodically,  that  the
        number of garbage  cans  were  sufficient,  and  that  exterminating
        services  were  provided,  the  inspection  confirmed  the  tenants'
        complaints that there was accumulation of excess garbage due  to  an
        insufficient number of garbage cans, and the existence of roach  and
        rodent infestation.  These conditions constitute health  and  safety
        hazards.  Consequently, the owner remained responsible for providing 
        adequate janitorial services and equipment, as well as extermination 
        services, sufficient to remedy the conditions found.

        Additionally, the petitioner failed to support by relevant  evidence
        the bare assertions below and at PAR that the conditions found  were
        tenant induced.








          Docket Number: BF-130244-RO

        THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent &  Eviction
        Regulations, the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 403 of the 
        Law of 1983, and Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, it is

        ORDERED, that this owner's petition be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
        denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same  hereby,
        is affirmed.

        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