ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 610008 RO

                                  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.:              
                                                 BI 610008 RO                
                              
                                              :  
                                                 
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
                                                 BF 610099 B
                                             
              ZEF SELCA                                       
           
                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On September 14, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          a petition for administrative review.  However, an examination of 
          the documents filed reveals that the owner was, in fact, 
          responding, to the tenants' complaint per Docket No. BF 610099 B, 
          served on the owner by the Administrator on August 31, 1987.  The 
          documents were inadvertently assigned the above referenced PAR 
          docket number, and consequently were not placed in the case docket 
          below for the Administrator's consideration.   

               The PAR docket remained open and pending before and after the 
          Rent Administrator issued the rent reduction order on April 8, 
          1988.  In light of the irregularity, which may have induced the 
          owner to consider the petition to be properly filed, the Deputy  
          Commissioner is considering the owner's arguments to the extent 
          that they address the conditions cited as bases for the rent 
          reductions.

               The Administrator granted the rent reductions based on the 
          results of an inspection conducted on February 23, 1988 that 
          indicated that the intercom was inaudible, and that the public 
          halls were dirty. 


















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 610008 RO

               The owner's "answer" that the owner had recently installed a 
          new intercom system, does not effect or contradict the inspector's 
          subsequent observation that the new system was inaudible.  The fact 
          that new equipment had been installed to improve service did not
          absolve the owner from the responsibility to maintain and repair 
          defective equipment.

               Concerning the question of building maintenance, the owner's 
          assertion that tenants refuse the owner access to their apartments 
          during working hours has no bearing on the question of the cleaning 
          and maintenance of public areas.

               With regard to the owner's concern regarding multiple rent 
          reductions, the Commissioner notes that for rent stabilized 
          apartments, where a rent reduction order takes effect, no further 
          rent reduction is authorized by a separate rent reduction order.  
          For rent controlled tenants, specific monetary reductions are 
          imposed for each separate service decrease that does not duplicate 
          an existing rent reduction.      

               Only rent stabilized tenants that signed the original 
          complaint benefitted from the rent reduction, while all rent 
          controlled tenants benefitted from a rent reduction since at least 
          one rent controlled tenant signed the complaint. The fact that more 
          than one person in each apartment may have signed the complaint did 
          not entitle the tenants to any additional rent reductions, or 
          additional relief.

               In fact, the rent reduction orders were issued to the tenants 
          of record.  As the status of all the tenants was not known, the 
          parties were instructed to abide by the rent stabilized or rent 
          controlled provisions of the Law that applied to them. 

               There is no indication that the owner filed a subsequent 
          timely administrative appeal of the rent reduction order.  Division 
          records do reveal that the Administrator denied the owner's rent 
          restoration application per Docket No. DB 630107 OR on August 15, 
          1989.  An administrative appeal of that order, inaccurately 
          denominated by the owner as an appeal of the rent reduction order 
          (BF 610099 B), is currently pending per Docket No. DI 610012 RO. 

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






               ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, 
          and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI 610008 RO

          affirmed.  This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to reapply for rent restoration as the facts may warrant, if 
          not already done so.

          ISSUED:






                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting Deputy Commissioner