BL210285RT;  CA230375RO
                                    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.:              
BL210285RT
                                                  CA230375RO
                 LARRY FRANKEL,   Owner
                       and
                 MARGARET FAURER, Tenant          RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONERS     BB230141B
          ----------------------------------x


                  ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING TENANT'S PETITION FOR
                    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND DISMISSING OWNER'S
                         PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          On December 2, 1987, the above-named petition-tenant timely refiled 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          October 14, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 365 Westminster Road, Brooklyn, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was not pro- 
          viding certain services, directed restoration of such services, and 
          ordered a rent reduction for rent-controlled tenants only.

          On January 8, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti- 
          tion against the same order.

          These petitions are being consolidated herein because they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          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 administrative appeal.

          The record reveals that 21 tenants joined in filing a Statement of 
          Complaint of a Decrease in Building-Wide Services on February 3, 
          1987, in which they listed several services not being maintained by 
          the owner, including defective windows and front door and roof 
          doors that are always open.

          In answer to the complaint dated April 9, 1987, the owner stated in 
          relevant part that all windows were repaired two years ago, the 
          front door hinges were adjusted for better closing, and the roof 
          egress is a fire exit that cannot be locked.












          BL210285RT;  CA230375RO




          In a reply submitted by a representative of the tenants it was 
          stated that the windows were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner, 
          the door check on the entrance door needs adjustment to insure 
          regularity and consistency in self-closing speed, and the exit 
          doors must be equipped with fire exit/panic hardware.

          A physical inspection by a Division of Housing and Community 
          Renewal (DHCR) inspector on June 2, 1987, revealed that there were 
          two broken panes of glass on the fourth floor and the roof door was 
          unlocked.  Another inspection on July 2, 1987, revealed that the 
          building entrance door was not fitted properly and, therefore, does 
          not close properly.

          Based on the inspector's report, orders were issued reducing the 
          rent of all rent-controlled tenants in the building by $5.00 per 
          month.  For all rent-stabilized tenants who joined in the complaint 
          the owner was directed to restore services but a rent reduction was 
          determined to be not warranted.

          In the petition for administrative review filed by one tenant, it 
          is alleged in substance that the orders for rent-controlled and 
          rent-stabilized tenants are inconsistent and the stabilized tenants 
          should also have been granted a rent reduction.

          The owner's petition was not filed within 35 days of the issuance 
          of the Administrator's order as required by Section 2529.2 of the 
          Rent Stabilization Code and must be dismissed.

          The tenant's petition was served on the owner on February 29, 1988.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Commis- 
          sioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition should be 
          granted.

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to 
          order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, where it is 
          found that the owner has failed to maintain required services.  The 
          record in this case indicates that the tenant requested a rent 
          reduction, and the inspection confirmed the existence of conditions 
          complained of.  Based on this finding, the Rent Administrator was 
          required to order a rent reduction.

          The petitioner-tenant was asked, by a notice dated April 2, 1993, 
          to submit written evidence of authorization to file a PAR on behalf 
          of other tenants. The tenant failed to provide such evidence.  










                    


          Accordingly, the petition is deemed to have been filed by the in- 
          dividual tenant only and not as the authorized representative of 
          any other tenants.

          The rent for Apartment 6-G is hereby reduced to the level in effect 
          prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before 
          the effective date of this rent reduction.  The effective date of 
          the rent reduction is April 1, 1987, the first rent payment day 
          after DHCR informed the owner of the tenant's complaint.  The owner 
          is directed to refund to the tenant all amounts collected in excess 
          of the reduced rent, since the effective date of the rent reduc- 
          tion.  If the owner fails to make a refund within 30 days of this 
          order, the tenant is authorized to deduct the amount from future
          rents until the total amount has been refunded.

          Until the owner files an application and an order is issued 
          restoring the rent, the owner may not demand or collect any rent 
          increase above the level established herein.

          The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration 
          application (Docket No. CR230126OR) was granted in part for the 
          rent-controlled tenants on July 6, 1989, based on a finding that 
          the broken window panes had been replaced but the building entrance 
          door and roof door lock had not been repaired.  No subsequent rent 
          restoration application has been filed.  Since the rent may not be 
          partially restored for rent-stabilized tenants, the rent reduction 
          ordered herein for Apt. 6-G remains in effect.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,  
          it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, dis- 
          missed as untimely, the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby 
          is, granted and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, modified in accordance with this order and opinion.


          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                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