STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. BJ-710351-RO
KREISEL COMPANY INCORPORATED,
D.R.O. DOCKET NO. G-B-D-7-10007-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
On October 19, 1987 the above-named petitioner-landlord filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on September 14,
1987 by the District Rent Administrator (50 Clinton Street,
Hempstead, New York) concerning the housing accommodations known
as 32 Pearsall Avenue, Glen Cove, New York, Apartment 1-J,
wherein the Administrator granted a rent reduction for the
subject stabilized apartment based on the landlord's failure to
The tenant of the apartment herein commenced the proceeding below
by filing with the Administrator a complaint of reduction in
services in March of 1987, stating (among other things) that:
(I) Debris was falling from the terrace ceiling;
(II) the terrace floor was cracked and dangerous.
In response to the tenant's complaint, the landlord stated that
the terrace would be repaired in the next 60 days and that the
other items have been taken care of.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, stated
that the "Terrace ceiling has only been covered, but iron beams
are corroding, debris falling." In addition, the order stated
that the terrace floor has cracks in the cement.
This order was based upon a physical inspection conducted by this
Division on August 28, 1987.
On appeal, the petitioner-landlord contends, in substance, that
(A) Prior to the inspection of August 28, 1987,
the petitioner installed steel soffit panels
on all building overhangs and treated all
exposed metal with rust inhibiting paint;
(B) thus, debris could not be falling from the
terrace overhang and the inspector could not
have possibly viewed the interior beams
(C) although photographs of the tenant's patio
surface reveal some water staining and a
minor crack, such conditions do not interfere
with the use and enjoyment of the tenant's
patio and at best constitute de minimis
conditions which do not warrant the granting
of a rent reduction. In support of its
contentions, the landlord submitted
photographs of the terrace herein.
In response to the landlord's petition, the tenant filed an
answer stating, in substance, that
(1) After three years of continuing rust and
corrosion, the outside iron beams have just
been scraped and painted in December of 1987;
(2) there are still cracks and water stains in
the cement surface of the tenant's patio; and
(3) water seeps out of one of the cracks,
resulting in a bad smell.
In support of her contentions, the tenant submitted photographs
of the terrace, including photographs of the outside beams taken
in November of 1987 (showing corroded outside beams subsequent to
the installation of the soffit panels on the building overhang).
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record
the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that there is nothing in the record below
nor in the documentation submitted with this appeal which negates
the results of the physical inspection conducted by this
Division. Photographs submitted by the petitioner-landlord
(which were taken after the installation of the soffit panels)
disclose iron beams which could clearly be inspectd by the naked
eye and a long crack in the cement floor of the terrace. While
the tenant has acknowledged that the iron beams have since been
scraped and painted, this would only affect a rent restoration
application filed by the owner. Finally, the owner's photographs
show that the crack in the terrace floor does not constitute a de
minimis condition and that this condition could deteriorate
without proper maintenance.
On the basis of the entire evidence of record, it is found that
the Administrator's order is correct and should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Emergency Tenant Protection Act and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it
ORDERED, that the Administrative Appeal be, and the same hereby
is, denied; and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA