STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
SANDRA L. DEVITA,
PETITIONER AL 130041-B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 9, 1987, the above-named tenant, the president of the
Campus Hall Tenants Association, filed a petition for adminis-
trative review of an order issued on June 18, 1987, by a
District Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommo-
dations known collectively as Georgetown Mews (formerly known as
Campus Hall Apartments) Flushing, New York.
The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 December 15, 1986, the tenant Sandra Devita, a tenant
representative, filed a complaint of a decrease in services,
joined by numerous other tenants at the complex. The tenants
asserted that their mailboxes had been replaced with inferior
ones, although, they conceded in their complaint that local
inspectors found them technically acceptable.
In its answer, the owner asserted that the former mailboxes were
in a deplorable condition, some broken and some missing; that
there existed a hodgepodge of broken, locked, unusable mailboxes
installed by the prior owner or by the tenants themselves, and
that the owner installed all new mailboxes of a uniform size for
all tenants which have been approved by the United States Postal
On June 18, 1987, the District Rent Administrator issued the
order here under review, denying the tenants' application.
In their petition for administrative review, the tenants
reiterate, in substance, that the new mailboxes are inferior.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner is obligated to
continue to provide mailboxes that meet postal requirements as
part of its base-date required services, under Sections 2520.6(r)
and 2523.2 of the Rent Stabilization Code, rath r than to con-
tinue to provide mailboxes of a certain size and type. In the
instant proceeding there is no allegation that the mailboxes do
not meet postal requirements. Indeed, the tenants conceded in
their original application that local inspectors, presumably
postal inspectors, found them acceptable, and the tenants have
not disputed the owner's assertion that the mailboxes comply with
postal service requirements. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds
that the owner has maintained required services with n the pur-
view of the Rent Stabilization Code and that a rent decrease is
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner