BF 430176-RO
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: BF 430176 RO

           DR. AZIZ ZADE                DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.:  LCS 000198 B

      On  May  29, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed  a
Petition  for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued March 24, 1987.  The order concerned housing
accommodations  located at 419 East 72nd 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

     The tenants commenced this action on September 26, 1984 by
filing  a  Statement  of Complaint of Decrease  in  Building-Wide
Services.  The following services decreases were complained of:

          1.  Inadequate janitorial services
          2.  Superintendent not on premises and cannot be

          3.  Inadequate heat and hot water due to defective

          4.  Bell and buzzer system malfunctioning
          5.  Front door lock not secure
          6.  Insufficient lighting in front of building
          7.  Illegal fortune teller business on premises
A copy of the complaint was served on the registered agent of the
owner,  L.W.L.  Associates,  and an opportunity  to  respond  was
given.  When no response was received the Administrator ordered a
physical  inspection of the premises.  The inspector visited  the
building on October 16, 1985 and found no resident superintendent
in  the  building and, further, that the public  areas  were  not
being  maintained.  All other services were found  to  have  been

      On  October 28, 1985 the owner's agent filed a response  to
the  complaint wherein it stated that the superintendent had been
instructed to clean the building more frequently.  The agent also
stated  that the bell and buzzer system, entrance door  lock  and
front  lights  were  working as noted in the inspector's  report.
Based  on this response the Administrator ordered a re-inspection
of  the building.  The inspector visited the building on November
26,  1986 and found the public areas not being maintained and  in
need  of mopping and sweeping.  The inspector also reported  that
there  was  no  sign indicating where the superintendent  can  be
reached.   Based  on  the inspector's report,  the  Administrator
issued  the order here under review on March 24, 1987,  directing
restoration  of  services  and  ordering  a  building-wide   rent

      The owner makes three arguments in seeking modification  or
reversal  of the Administrator's order.  Before addressing  them,
the  Commissioner  notes that the owner has requested  that  this
petition be accepted as timely notwithstanding the fact  that  it
was  filed after the time limit established by 9 NYCRR 2529.2 had
expired.   The petitioner asserts that the Administrator's  order
was  sent  to the prior managing agent despite the fact that  the
owner  had advised the Division on February 17, 1987 of a  change
in management, effective January 1, 1987.  A copy of a "Report of
Changes of Identity of Landlord" was submitted, marked "Received"
by  the  Division  of  Housing and Community  Renewal  (DHCR)  on
February  17, 1987.   The Commissioner also notes that  the  ten-
ants'  association  of  the building,  in  its  response  to  the
petition,  does  not  voice an objection to petitioner's  request
that this petition be deemed to have been timely filed.  Based on
the Commissioner's review of DHCR records, this petition will  be
considered as timely and ready for decision.

     The owner's three grounds for reversal/modification are:

          1.  The order here under review is arbitrary and
              capricious in that there is a visiting super-
              intendent in the building who is responsible

              for keeping the halls clean.  The superintendent
              does not live on the premises but can be reached
              on one hours notice.

          2.  Petitioner claims it has been unjustly damaged in
              that the order here under review is effective
              December 1, 1984 for rent stabilized tenants. This
              is two and a half years before the issuance of the
              order and reduces the rent for the entire time, as
              well as freezing rent guideline increases.
              Petitioner states that this is an excessive

          3.  The owner claims it has been denied due process in
              in that it could not file for rent restoration
              until the Administrator had issued the order here
              under review which, as stated above, took some
              thirty months from the time of the filing of the

      The  tenants  association of the subject building  filed  a
response  to  the  petition  and stated,  inter  alia,  that  the
"visiting  superintendent" actually resided  in  Westchester  and
that the petitioner does not provide an emergency phone number if
the  superintendent cannot be reached.  Six other  tenants  filed
individual  responses wherein they stated that the hallways  were
still dirty despite petitioner's statements to the contrary.  The
tenants'   also  agreed  with  the  statement  of  the   tenants'
associa-tion in that the superintendent lives in Westchester  and
is not readily accessible.

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

     The owner's first argument, i.e. that the order is arbitrary
and  capricious, is without merit.  Two separate DHCR inspections
confirmed  the  existence  of the conditions  set  forth  in  the
Administrator's order.  The owner has not submitted any proof  to
rebut the inspector's reports and it is settled that such reports
carry more probative weight than the unsupported allegations of a
party to the proceeding.  The owner may file for rent restoration
when services have been properly restored.

     The owner's second and third arguments deal with due process
violations and unjust damage with regard to the time between  the
filing  of  the tenant's complaint and the issuance and effective
date of the order here under review.  The Commissioner notes that
the  Administrator's imposition of the December 1, 1984 effective
date  of the rent reduction for the three stabilized tenants  was
in  keeping  with  DHCR  policy to make such  a  rent   reduction
effective  the first month following service of the complaint  on
the  owner.  (The rent reduction for controlled tenants is effec-
tive  April  1, 1987.)  In this proceeding, the owner was  served
with  the  complaint  on  November 20,  1984.   The  Commissioner
rejects the owner's contentions that it was denied due process or
was  unjustly  damaged.   Indeed,  after  the  October  28,  1985
response,  by the petitioner, to the complaint, the Administrator
ordered  a  reinspection of the subject premises.  This  act  was
done  to insure that the owner was afforded complete due process.
The   Commissioner finds that the Administrator  was  correct  in
issuing the order here under review.  That order is, accordingly,

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
and Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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.


                                    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