STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER AK 130093-B
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 17, 1987, the above-named owner, filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on May 21, 1987, by a
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation, known
as Apartment 3-K, 93-45 222nd Street, Queens Village, New York,
wherein the owner was directed to restore services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant
to the issues raised by the petition for review.
On September 17, 1986, the subject tenant filed an application
for a rent reduction based on the owner's alleged failure to
maintain services alleging inter alia dirty public area , defec-
tive sidewalk and courtyard paving, and a defective door lock in
the vestibule entrance door.
The owner interposed an answer to the tenant's complaint wherein
he alleged inter alia that the tenant's complaints were covered
in a prior docket in which hearings were held and the owner was
found to provide adequate repair and maintenance services to the
On February 4, 1987, a physical inspection of the subje t apart-
ment was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR). The inspector, in his report, noted that the
complained of conditions were as alleged by the tenant.
On May 21, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review directing the owner to restore the following ser-
1. Outer hall and vestibule door locks need repair.
2. Vestibule area and roof landing require cleaning.
3. Sidewalks and walkways need repair.
In his petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that a prior
docket held that entrance locks were not a required service in
the subject building, that the owner has two maintenance per-
sonnel who clean the halls every day, and that an inspection
carried out by the Compliance Bureau found that the courtyard had
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be granted in part.
The Commissioner notes that in Dockets BB 130149-RT et al. (QCS
000151-B) it was held that, with the exception of the 94-05
building in this complex, entrance locks are not an essential or
required service. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that item
number one cited in the order here under review must be deleted
In regard to item number two cited by the Rent Administrator, the
Commissioner notes that the basis of the order was not that
maintenance services were not being provided. Rather, the
administrator found these services not efficacious as to the
correction of conditions existing in the building, as evinced by
the inspector's report. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that
item number two should be sustained as a basis for the Rent
Administrator's directive to restore service by correcting these
The Commissioner notes that the very nature of sidewalks, cement,
and concrete requires that regular maintenance be carried out.
Climate and conditions, such as temperature, rain, ice, etc..
cause expansion and contraction of surfaces leading to breakage.
Conditions monitored at one point in time are not necessarily
probative of later or earlier conditions. Accordingly, prior
administrative determinations have relied upon the greater weight
of later inspections occurring prior to the issuance of Adminis-
trator's order (whether they evince repair or recurrence of
breakage). The Commissioner notes that the owner has urged that
the Commissioner rely upon the March 26, 1987 inspection of the
premises (mentioned in the April 9, 1987 Compliance letter at-
tached to the petition) and, indeed, the Commissioner has relied
on this inspection in prior cases as evidence of repair on the
date indicated. However, in the instant case the inspection
relied on by the Administrator specifically cited sidewalks and
walkways whereas the Compliance Bureau's March 2 , 1987 inspec-
tion cited the courtyard and building front leading to t e base-
ment. Accordingly the Commissioner finds that item number three
cited in the order under review should be sustained as a basis
for the administrator's order.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted
in part and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, modified to delete item number one. In all other re-
spects the Rent Administrator's order is affirmed.