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.: BH-420312-RO
                                              :                        
                    S.J. LANDAU CORPORATION,  :   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                              :   DOCKET NO.: AL-410155-S
                                              :                     
                                PETITIONER    :   
          ------------------------------------X


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On August 13, 1987, the above-named owner-petitioner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on July 21, 
          1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          NY, concerning the housing accommodation known as 990 Sixth Avenue, 
          Apt. 19S, New York, NY, wherein the Administrator ordered a rent 
          reduction based on a finding of a decrease in services.

               The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order 
          was warranted.
               
               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 administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding was commenced on December 3, 1986 by the 
          subject rent stabilized tenant filing an individual complaint of 
          decrease in services alleging low water pressure in the bathroom,  
          an inoperable intercom, defective flooring (in need of waxing), and 
          vermin (mice) infestation.

               On December 30, 1986, the Division sent the owner a copy of 
          the complaint and the owner filed an answer stating, in pertinent 
          part, that the water pressure was adequate, further noting this 
          item had been inspected by the Department of Health and it had 
          found no deficiencies; that the intercom and alarm systems were 
          integrated with every apartment and were functional in all occupied 
          apartments; that management did not offer waxing service for the 














          BH-420312-RO


          parquet flooring that is in place; and that extermination and post- 
          construction sealing repairs were being done, and problems with 
          rodents should have been reported to the super, who had special 
          materials to address this problem.

               On April 14, 1987, a Division staff member conducted an on- 
          site inspection of the subject apartment and reported, among other 
          things, that there was inadequate water pressure in the bathroom 
          shower; that the intercom was defective (lobby could call 
          apartment, but not vice versa); that there was severe mice 
          infestation (eg, evidence of mice in the stove and radiator); and 
          that black glue stains on the parquet flooring needed to be 
          removed.

               On July 21, 1987, the Administrator issued the order hereunder 
          review, reducing the tenant's rent to the level that was in effect 
          prior to the last rent guidelines increase based on a finding of a 
          decrease in services, citing the above-mentioned items in the 
          inspector's report.

               In the petition for administrative review (PAR), the owner 
          again asserts that sealing repairs were made and exterminators were 
          called in, and the super should have been notified of rodent 
          problems; that there is normal water pressure at the building;  
          that the intercom and alarm systems were and are functional; and 
          that the stains on the tenant's floor were taken care of upon the 
          tenant's reporting the problem to the super.  The owner further 
          states that many of the same complaints listed on other dockets 
          have been judged unfounded by the Division.

               In answer to the PAR, the tenant states, in pertinent part, 
          that she personally removed the stains from the flooring; that she 
          notified the super of rodent problems but he did not come to the 
          apartment; that the water pressure was inadequate; and that she has 
          requested management several times to fix the security alarm 
          system, but to no avail.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition 
          should be denied.

               Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the legal regulated 
          rent to the level in effect prior to the most recent guidelines 
          adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the period 
          which it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required 
          services.

               Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.
               
          BH-420312-RO









               Review of the evidence of record shows that the Administrator 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the Division's April 14, 1987 inspection report which revealed 
          rodent infestation, inadequate water pressure, a defective intercom 
          system and glue stains on the tenant's floor.  Therefore, the 
          Commissioner finds that the Administrator correctly determined that 
          the owner had failed to maintain services and properly reduced the 
          tenant's rent.

               The petitioner's claim that each of the subject conditions 
          cited in the order were either not defective or properly attended 
          to fails to refute the inspector's findings to the contrary.

               The petitioner's general assertion that many of the items 
          cited in the subject complaint were judged to be unfounded by the 
          Division in other dockets is made without any specificity.  As 
          such, and given that each case is viewed on its own merits, this 
          assertion fails to establish error with the record.

               This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's right to 
          file an application for a restoration of rent with the DHCR if the 
          facts warrant.  The rent reduction remains in effect until the 
          owner's application is granted by the DHCR.

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

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied 
          and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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