ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:  BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT

                                  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      NOS.:
                                                 BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
                                              :     D.R.O.    DOCKET     NO.
                                                 AJ 430075-B
               1689 ASSOCIATES                                   
               1689                   TENANTS                    ASSOCIATES,
                                                                      
                                 PETITIONERS  :  
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING OWNER'S AND TENANTS' PETITIONS FOR    
            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND REMANDING THE PROCEEDING TO THE 
            ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

               On July 13, 1987, the above named petitioner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an  order  issued  on  June  26,
          1987, by a District Rent Administrator at 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York  11433,  concerning  the  housing  accommodation
          known as 1689 First Avenue, New York, N.Y., wherein  the  District
          Rent Administrator granted a rent reduction. 

               On July 27, 1987, the above named petitioners-tenants filed a 
          petition for administrative review against the same order. 

               The  Commissioner  has  consolidated  these   petitions   for
          disposition because they involve common issues of law and fact.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all  of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that  portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding  was  originally  commenced  on  October  11,
          1986, when thirteen tenants joined in filing a complaint  alleging
          that the owner had failed  to  properly  provide  and  maintain  a
          number of building-wide services.   

               The tenants included with their complaint a 4-page inspection 
          report dated  July  14,  1986  prepared  at  the  request  of  the
          Division's Enforcement Bureau which  indicates  several  defective
          conditions that the tenants asserted are very serious and  obvious
          Building Code or Fire Code violations.  The  tenants  requested  a
          rent reduction, claiming that the owner has refused to comply with 
          directives of the Enforcement Bureau and makes repairs  only  when
          subjected to the penalty of a rent reduction. 




               In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that there  were
          no violations against the building, that some of the tenants  have






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:  BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
          refused access to the painters,  that  the  front  step  has  been
          fixed, and that the "deadlock" that  the  tenants'  want  for  the
          front door is a violation that was removed by the Fire Department. 

               The tenants responded and asserted that  the  July  14,  1986
          inspection report stated that  the  chute  door  in  the  basement
          should be closed at all times but instead the  owner  removed  the
          door completely, that the owner has made no attempt to repair  the
          conditions cited in the inspection report despite assurances  made
          to the Enforcement Bureau, that tenants the owner claims  to  have
          called never heard from him, that the front step was not  repaired
          before a tenant  was  injured  in  a  fall,  that  the  owner  had
          installed the illegal lock on  the  front  door  and  the  tenants
          simply want a legal  lock,  and  that  the  owner  has  repeatedly
          provided DHCR with false information. 

               The Commissioner requested a physical inspection  which  took
          place on January 15, 1987.  The inspector reported that there  was
          no lock on the front door, that the outer  door  lock  works,  and
          that the front door step was not defective.

               The Administrator's order issued on June 26, 1987  ordered  a
          rent reduction of a guideline for stabilized tenants and $5.00 per 
          month for rent controlled tenants for "no  lock  on  the  building
          entrance door."  

               The owner in his petition for administrative review  contends
          that the Rent Administrator had previously reduced  the  rent  for
          the absence of a lock on the entrance door of the subject building 
          in CDR 10,939, issued on November 29, 1985.  Moreover,  the  owner
          contends  the  lock  was  removed  by  the  New  York  City   Fire
          Department.  Thus, the Administrator's order should be revoked. 

               In response to the owner's petition,  the  tenants  refer  to
          their  own  petition  and  assert  that  the  current  owner  took
          possession of the subject building on or about December  31,  1986
          but is contesting actions that took  place  prior  to  that  date.
          Additionally, the tenants assert that  the  rent  reduction  order
          solely addressed the issue of the entrance door lock and  did  not
          include  any  of  the  other  building-wide  services  which  were
          included  in  the  4-page  inspection  report  attached   to   the
          complaint.   Included  in   that   report   were   the   following
          observations by the inspector:  outer front door saddle was  loose
          and sagging, the laundry  exhaust  system  was  excessively  loud,
          inner front vestibule wall tiles were missing,  the  building-wide
          flooring needed repair, new mailboxes were not installed properly, 
          the basement door to the rear yard was off the hinge, the basement 
          was dirty and had broken windows, a wrought-iron fence between the 
          subject building and the adjacent building had  fallen  down,  the
          second floor public hall had two raised and cracked  floor  tiles,
          the door to the garbage chute in the basement did  not  close  and
          there was an accumulation of garbage, the second and third floor 


          public hall flooring needed repair, the stairway between  the  4th
          and 5th floor needed repair to one step, the bulkhead window had a 
          missing pane, the fifth floor public hall ceiling was  discolored,
          the chimney above the roof needed repair, the roof  needed  to  be
          resurfaced, and there was an accumulation of rubbish on the  roof.






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:  BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
               
               Lastly, the tenants assert that the instant proceeding is not 
          a duplicate of any prior proceeding but the Administrator's  order
          should be modified to include the many other defective  conditions
          cited in the Enforcement Bureau's inspection report.
               
               The Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  the  owner's  and
          tenants' petition should be granted and the proceeding  should  be
          remanded for further investigation of the tenants'  complaints  by
          the Administrator.

               The Commissioner notes that the Administrator in  Docket  No.
          U-000852-B (CDR 10,939) granted a rent reduction for, among  other
          things, a defective  exterior  door  lock.   Since  the  rent  had
          already been reduced for this condition and  that  rent  reduction
          was still in effect, it was  improper  for  the  Administrator  to
          issue another order based on the same condition.  Accordingly, the 
          rent reduction order must be revoked.

               The tenants, however, alleged  in  their  complaint  numerous
          other serious and potentially dangerous conditions that  had  been
          reported by a DHCR inspector but were never  investigated  by  the
          Administrator for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  a  rent
          reduction was  warranted.   The  proceeding  is,  therefore  being
          remanded for appropriate consideration of the  other  items  cited
          in the complaint and, if appropriate,  issuance  of  another  rent
          reduction order with an effective date of  December  1,  1986  for
          stabilized tenants and the first rent payment subsequent  to  June
          26, 1987 for rent controlled tenants.   

               THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the   Rent   and   Eviction
          Regulations and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that this owner's petition for administrative review 
          be granted; and the Rent Administrator's order  be  and  the  same
          hereby is revoked; and the  tenants'  petition  be  and  the  same
          hereby is granted to the extent of remanding  this  proceeding  to
          the Rent Administrator for further processing to determine whether 
          the owner has failed to maintain building-wide services for  which
          a rent reduction is warranted.  

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner



                                          












          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.:  BG 430274-RO, BG 430158-RT
























    

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