BD 510485 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK   11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO. BD 510485 RO

                                                  DISTRICT RENT ORDER
                                                  DOCKET NO. AG 530110 B

                          MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDERS

          On April  27,  1987  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against orders issued on March 
          23, 1987 by the Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
          Jamaica, New York concerning housing accommodations known as  609
          West 135th  Street,  New  York,  New  York,  Various  Apartments,
          wherein  the  Administrator  granted  rent  reductions  for  both
          controlled and stabilized  apartments  in  the  subject  premises
          based upon a decrease in services.

          Various tenants commenced the proceeding below in  July  1986  by
          filing  a  complaint  of  reduction   in   services   enumerating
          defective conditions therein.   In  response  thereto  the  owner
          stated that it was in the process of rehabilitating  the  subject
          property (along with four other  buildings);  and  that  numerous
          violations have been corrected as reflected in the owner's print 
          out of violations and progress report.

          The order of the  Administrator,  appealed  herein,  reduced  the
          rents of controlled apartments (2, 7, 8, 9 and 12) by $33.00  per
          month and the rents of stabilized apartments (3, 4, 5,  11,  12A,
          14, 15 and 17) were reduced to  the  guideline  level  in  effect
          prior to the September 1, 1986 effective date of said orders  for
          ten defective conditions as follows:

               1)   Defective mailboxes

               2)   Defective intercom

               3)   Building front entrance doors

               4)   Defective entrance steps

               5)   Defective stairwell casing

          BD 510485 RO
               6)   Defective public  hallway  windows:   3rd,  4th
                    and 5th floors

               7)   Defective public hallway lighting  on  3rd  and
                    5th floors

               8)    Public  hallway  walls   and   ceilings   have
                    peeling paint and plaster

               9)   Inadequate water pressure

              10)   Defective cornices

          These orders were based upon the results of a physical inspection 
          of the subject premises conducted by the Division on  October  3,
          1986, the report of  which  disclosed  that  the  mailboxes  were
          broken; that  the  intercom  system  was  inoperative;  that  the
          building entrance door was unsecured with the lock missing;  that
          the front entrance  steps  were  chipped  and  broken;  that  the
          stairwell casing had broken steps and loose molding; that hallway 
          windows on the 3rd, 4th and 5th floors were  cracked,  loose  and
          broken; that the hall lighting fixtures on the 3rd and 5th floors 
          were inoperative; that the public hallways throughout floors  1-6
          had peeling paint and plaster;  that  both  hot  and  cold  water
          pressure was "very low" with the faucets fully open; and that the 
          building cornices were rusted from age.

          In this petition for administrative review the owner contends, in 
          substance, that the Administrator's orders were  in  error  since
          the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) has  refused
          to impose  a  rent  reduction  where  "de  minimus"  repairs  are
          involved; that said order is vague  with  respect  to  the  front
          entrance doors; that in July and  August  1986  it  substantially
          corrected or replaced with new equipment the  various  conditions
          complained of by the tenants; that various apartments (3, 4,  11,
          12A, 15, and 17) had received previous rent reductions and thus a 
          further rent reduction was not warranted; and  that  the  penalty
          imposed by the Administrator was excessive and unduly punitive.

          After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  entire   record,   the
          Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  this  petition  should  be

          The defective conditions specified in the  Administrator's  order
          were  objectively  documented  as  the  result  of   a   physical
          inspection of the subject premises.   To  the  extent  the  owner
          asserts various conditions were corrected in July - August  1986,
          the report of a subsequent  physical  inspection  by  DHCR  bears
          greater weight than the owner's assertions to the contrary.   The
          owner's allegation that certain conditions would be corrected  in
          the future, while pertinent to a rent restoration proceeding, are 
          irrelevant on this appeal.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the rent decrease ordered 
          by the Administrator is properly reflective of the  rental  value
          of the decreased services.  The defective  conditions,  as  found
          by the Administrator, are not de minimus,  particularly  as  they
          involve, among other things, building  security,  potential  trip

          BD 510485 RO
          hazards, a lack of adequate water pressure and mailboxes.

          As stated in the Administrator's orders appealed herein, where  a
          previous order reducing the rent of a stabilized apartment is  in
          effect,  no  further  rent  reduction  is   authorized   therein.
          However, the owner may not demand or collect  any  rent  increase
          until the Administrator issues an order restoring the  rent  upon
          a finding that all services have been restored.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied;
          that the orders of  the  Rent  Administrator  be,  and  the  same
          hereby are modified to reflect defective building entrance doors 
          missing door lock; and that as so modified said  orders  be,  and
          the same hereby are affirmed.

                                                  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