STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.: BJ  110181-RO,
                                                 BJ 110182-RO, BJ 110183-RO, 
                                                 BJ 110184-RO, BJ 110185-RO,
                                              :  BJ 110186-RO, BJ 110187-RO,
                                                 BJ 110188-RO, BJ 110189-RO, 
                                                 BJ 110190-RO, BK 120103-RO 
          LAUREL    ARMS    MANAGEMENT    CO.,               BK    110104-RO

                                                 D.R.O.     ORDER      NOS.:
                                                 BB 110552-S, BB 110534-S, 
                                                 BB 110533-S, BB 110549-S, 
                                                 BB 110546-S,  BB  110545-S,
                                                 BB 120587-S,  BB  120589-S,
                                                 BB 110523-S,  BB  120580-S,
                                                 BB 120585-S, BB 120586-S,

                                 PETITIONER                                :


               These petitions have been consolidated because  they  involve
          common issues of law and fact.

               On October 15, 29, and November 19,  1987,  the  above  named
          petitioner-owner filed timely Petitions for Administrative  Review
          against orders issued on September 25, October 1, 7, 23,  and  26,
          1987 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street,  Jamaica,
          New York, concerning housing  accommodations  known  as  Apartment
          Nos. F-14, E-17, E-15, E-8, D-10, D-8, D-7, A-9, B-19, C-6,E-9 and 
          D-17, respectively, all of 41-41/43 43rd  Street,  Sunnyside,  New
          York, wherein the Rent Administrator  determined  that  there  had
          been various decreases in services and ordered  a  rent  reduction
          based thereon. 

               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 appeals.  

               The tenants commenced these proceedings by filing  individual
          service complaints.  Attached to each complaint was a printed form

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BJ 110181-RO, ETC. 
          entitled "Complaint Checkoff List" whereby the tenant could  check
          any listed  service  item  which  was  allegedly  defective.   For
          example, under "bathroom" the form listed  such  items  as  "floor
          tiles," "wall tiles," "ceiling" and "toilet  flushing  apparatus."
          In each cited complaint the tenant had checked off  various  items
          which were allegedly defective.      

               The tenants requested a rent reduction based upon the alleged 
          decreases in services.

               In answer to each of the complaints, except for BB  120585-S,
          to be discussed below, the owner submitted an identical  statement
          alleging the complaint was "baseless having no specific allegation 
          as required" by the DHCR.  The owner  further  alleged  that  some
          unspecified complaints had been submitted only due  to  harassment
          and/or fraud on the part of an unnamed group of  "agitators."   In
          BB 120585-S, the owner  answered  the  complaint  on  its  merits,
          although the complaint also used the checkoff list, by denying the 
          tenant's allegations. 

               In  the  above-captioned  Administrator's  Orders,  the  Rent
          Administrator determined, after an inspection in each case by  the
          Division,  that  certain  specified  reductions  in  services  had

               In these petitions, except for petition number BK  120103-RO,
          to  be  discussed  below,  the  owner  contends  that   the   Rent
          Administrator's  Orders  are  incorrect  and  should  be  modified
          because there was "nothing listed" in the original  complaints  of
          decrease in services.  The owner noted that  it  had  raised  this
          issue in its answers, adding that "we could not correct that which 
          we were not informed of."  The owner also stated that upon receipt 
          of each order with the specific  complaints  listed  thereon  each
          problem was immediately attended  to  and  tenant  acknowledgments
          thereof were filed with the DHCR.  In petition numb r  BK  120103-
          RO, the owner referred to its answer on BB 120585-S  and  attached
          an application for rent restoration, dated November 16,  1987,  in
          which the tenant conceded the necessary repairs had been made.   

               The tenants did not answer these  petitions,  although  given
          the opportunity to do so.

               The Commissioner is  of  the  opinion  that  these  petitions
          should be denied.

               The record shows that  the  above-described  check-off  lists
          were attached to each complaint and served  on  the  owner.   Each
          tenant checked off those items which were allegedly defective  and
          the Administrator ordered an inspection  for  only  the  items  so
          specified.  (Each tenant checked off the allegedly defective items 
          for his or her self.)

               The Commissioner hereby  finds  that  a  check  indicating  a
          defect, for example, on a  living  room  ceiling  gave  the  owner
          adequate notice of the alleged problem.  This finding is supported 
          by the various inspection reports which either affirmed or  denied
          each alleged defect, as well as by the fact  that  the  owner  did

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BJ 110181-RO, ETC. 
          answer  the  complaint  in  BB  120585-S  on  its  merits.    (The
          Commissioner notes that the defects found by the inspections  were
          all apparent upon a visual inspection, e.g., discolored ceilings.) 

               The allegation that the defects were repaired  shortly  after
          receiving the various orders in no way detracts from the  validity
          of the orders themselves; nor does  the  tenant's  affirmation  on
          November 16,1987 that the services had been restored in proceeding 
          number BB 120585-S, whose order was issued three weeks before  the
          affirmation, detract from the validity of the order therein.  

               The allegations, incorporated by  reference  to  the  owner's
          answers, that the complaints  were  the  result  of  fraud  and/or
          harassment by unnamed "agitators" are unsupported by any  evidence
          and belied by the service decreases found by the inspectors.

               This Order is without prejudice to the owner's right to  file
          for restorations of the rents, if the facts so warrant.

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

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the  same  hereby  are,
          denied and the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby 
          are, affirmed. 


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner


          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: BJ 110181-RO, ETC. 


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