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 520129-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: ZCU 001547-B
     NEW HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES   PETITIONER : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On April 6, 1987 the above named petitioner owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on March  23,  1987  by  the
     District Rent Administrator Gertz Plaza, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
     New York concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment 6G at 501 
     West 183rd Street New York, New York.

     The order appealed from ordered  a  rent  reduction  for  the  complaining
     tenant in the building based upon a finding that the incinerator rooms  on
     four floors were dirty and in need of sweeping and mopping.  The order was 
     based on two separate physical inspections of the  premises  conducted  on
     December 30, 1985 and on November 11, 1986.

     The petitioner presents the following arguments in  urging  reversal.   It
     claims that since 20 of the 42 apartments are covered under Section  8  of
     the Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 1437f) no tenant can  be  eligible  for  a
     rent  reduction.   Further,  it  claims  that  an  annual  Section  8  HPD
     inspection  at  the  time  of  recertification  noted  and  corrected  all
     deficiencies.  

     The petitioner also alleges that the incinerator rooms  in  question  were
     cleaned regularly.  It assert that it cannot keep  constant  control  over
     how the tenants use these rooms.  The owner also expresses disbelief  that
     a reduction would be ordered for what it believes is a  trivial  violation
     which, as stated, was beyond its control.

     After  careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  in   the   record,   the
     Commissioner grants the petition.

     Petitioners argument that the fact that some of his tenants are covered by 
     Section 8 of the Housing Act means that the Commissioner  cannot  order  a
     reduction is without merit.  The courts have held  that,  like  all  other
     statutes, Section 8 does not preempt state law.  Only specific  provisions
     that conflict with the letter or purpose of Section 8  will  be  preempted
     (Sec e.g. Morrisiana II Assoc. v. Harvey 139 Misc 2d 651, 527 NYS  2d  954
     [Civ Ct NYCTY, 1988]).  The  Commissioner  finds  nothing  conflicting  in
     order a rent reduction for failure to provide services.  A  copy  of  this
     order  and  opinion  will  be  forwarded  to  the  Department  of  Housing
     Preservation and Development for any action it may wish to take.









          DOCKET NUMBER: BD 520129-RO
     The petitioner's argument regarding the annual HPD  inspection  is  easily
     answered.  Regardless of petitioner's duties and responsibilities to  HPD,
     its  duties  under  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and  Code  are   wholly
     separateand apart.   An  annual  inspection  does  prove  that  the  owner
     fulfills its duty to provide and maintain services year round.   

     The petitioner's assertion that this violation is in any  way  trivial  is
     not correct.  Dirty incinerator rooms are potential fire hazards  as  well
     as breeding grounds for infestation.  The Commissioner further rejects the 
     petitioners' argument that it has limited control over  what  the  tenants
     do.  The Commissioner  notes  these  violations  were  on  four  different
     floors.  Additionally it is settled that a physical inspection is of  more
     probative value than the assertions of an owner as regards  the  existence
     and seriousness of service decreases.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,  and  that
     the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and 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