BD 410294 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.: BD 410294 RO

     DAVID ASSOCIATES 415               DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AG 430003 B
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On April 21, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed  a
Petition  for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued March 17, 1987.  The order concerned housing
accommodations  located at 415 East 80th Street, New  York,  N.Y.
wherein  the Administrator ordered a building-wide rent reduction
for failure to maintain required or essential services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services.  They alleged
that  the  owner  was  failing to maintain  certain  required  or
essential  services,  within the meaning of  9  NYCRR  2520.6(r),
including inadequate building security due to defective locks and
intercom  system,  unclean public areas, vermin infestation,  and
plumbing leaks in the building.  The complaint was served on  the
owner  and  an  opportunity to respond was afforded.   The  owner
filed  a  response  wherein  it denied  the  allegations  in  the
complaint.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
premises.  The inspector's report confirmed that the owner failed
to  provide  required services building-wide, to wit-- inadequate
garbage  removal, public areas in need of cleaning,  evidence  of
roach  infestation and moisture on fifth floor ceiling and  walls
from  previous leaks as well as chipped paint and  plaster.   The
Administrator  ordered  a  building-wide  rent  reduction.    The
Commissioner notes that the subject building has since  converted
to cooperative ownership.

      On  appeal  the  owner, through counsel,  states  that  the
Administrator  was  in  error  in concluding  that  there  was  a
decrease   in   building-wide  services  necessitating   a   rent
reduction.  Petitioner states that it has never been given notice
of  the  inspection  or  served with a copy  of  the  inspector's
report, but responds to the Administrator's order as follows:

          1.   The  inspection could not have shown an inadequate
               garbage  collection schedule in that the  building
               contains    an    incinerator   with    accessible
               depositories.
          
          2.   The  public areas of the building have always been
               kept  clean  and  have never  required  more  than
               routine  painting.   Any need for  cleaning  could
               have  only  resulted  from  acts  of  the  tenants
               calculated to produce false and misleading results
               during the inspection
          
          3.   The  subject building does not suffer  from  roach
               infestation.   The  owner supplies  a  copy  of  a
               notice,  allegedly posted in the lobby,  informing
               the  tenants  of the availability of extermination
               services
          
          4.   With  regard to the finding of moisture from leaks
               and  peeling  paint and plaster, the owner  states
               that  the roof underwent extensive repairs due  to
               the  unauthorized installation of an antenna by  a
               tenant.   The  owner states that all such  repairs
               were  done before the owner was served with a copy
               of the complaint.
          
Petitioner  points  out  that  the  building  has  converted   to
cooperative  ownership, as has been stated above,  and  that  the
tenants  would have not purchased apartments had conditions  been
as stated in the complaint.  Finally, the owner states that, even
assuming  arguendo that the conditions described by the inspector
do exist, a rent reduction is not warranted.
     Twelve tenants filed responses to the petition.  Each tenant
takes  issue  with the statements of the owner and requests  that
the  Commissioner  affirm the order here under  review.   Several
tenants  specifically state that the public areas are  still  not
clean.   Others  speak  of the existence  of  roach  infestation,
despite the availability of extermination services.  The issue of
leakage  from  the roof is discussed by some tenants,  who  state
that it is a continuing problem.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
denied.

      The  Commissioner  finds that petitioner's  statements  are
insufficient to rebut the Administrator's findings, based on  the
report  of  the  DHCR  inspector.   Initially,  the  Commissioner
rejects the owner's contention that it was entitled to any notice
of  the  inspection or the right to be served with a copy of  the
inspector's  report.   DHCR policy is that  the  service  of  the
complaint puts the owner on notice of the allegations of services
deficiencies, as well as the necessity of correcting them.   This
policy  has  been  upheld  by  the  courts  (see  Empress   Manor
Apartments  v. DHCR 147 A.D.2d 642, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49  [2nd  Dept.,
1989]).  With regard to the actual allegations of the owner as to
the  existence of the services deficiencies, the Commissioner has
consistently  held  that  the report  of  a  DHCR  inspector  are
entitled to more probative weight than the allegations of a party
to  the  proceeding.  In this case, not only has  the  owner  not
supported  its allegations, but twelve tenants have responded  to
the  petition by taking issue with those allegations.   Based  on
the  information in the inspector's report, the Administrator was
empowered to order a building-wide rent reduction and was correct
in   issuing  the  order  here  under  review.   That  order  is,
accordingly, affirmed.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
it is

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

ISSUED:



                                                                 JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                   Acting 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