Adm. Review Docket No.: BI-430104-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 430104-RO
                                            :  DRO DOCKET NO.: AG 430068-B
             WYNDHAM REALTY CO.,

                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                             
                                         
          ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                                     IN PART      

        On September 17, 1987, the  above-named  petitioner  owner  filed  a
        Petition for Administrative Review against an order issued on August 
        31, 1987, concerning the housing accommodations known as  571  Third
        Ave., New York, New York,  wherein  the  Administrator  reduced  the
        tenants' rents based on a finding of a building  wide  reduction  of
        services.

        The issue  in  these  proceedings  is  whether  the  Administrator's
        determination was correct.

        The applicable law is Section  2520.6(r)  and  2523.4  of  the  Rent
        Stabilization Code and  Section  2202.16  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction
        Regulations.

        The tenants commenced these proceedings alleging  various  building-
        wide service reductions.  The tenants alleged inadequate  hot  water
        and water pressure;  inadequate  superintendent  services;  lack  of
        access to the basement fuse box and  boiler  shut-off;  fire  escape
        routes blocked by trash kept near fire escapes and in hallways;  and
        dirty hallways.

        The owner's answer alluded to a response in separate proceedings  in
        Docket No. AG-410104-B to  the  effect  that  hot  water  and  water
        pressure were adequate; that while the owner  was  not  required  to
        maintain an  on-premises  superintendent,  janitorial  service  were
        adequate; that fire exits were not blocked  by  an  accumulation  of
        garbage; that hallways are  cleaned  on  a  daily  basis;  and  that
        tenants had access to the basement by requesting the keys  from  the
        storekeeper in the adjoining premises.

        The tenants responded, in essence, that none  of  the  problems  had
        been addressed.  One tenant conceded that the problem of erratic hot 
        water had been addressed.

        An inspection was conducted on March 12, 1987 which confirmed all of 
        the conditions complained of by the tenant.







        Adm. Review Docket No.: BI-430104-RO
        On August 31, 1987 the Administrator issued order reducing the rents 
        for rent controlled tenant by 71/2% of the maximum legal rent,  plus
        $15.00, based  on  the  inspector's  findings  that  the  hot  water
        temperature of 80oF was  inadequate  (71/2%  of  the  maximum  legal
        rent);   inadequate   water   pressure   ($3.00);   no   on-premises
        superintendent ($4.00); fire exit  blocked  by  an  accumulation  of
        garbage ($4.00); failure to clean public hallways ($3.00); and  lack
        of access to the basement ($1.00).  The order further provided  that
        all  fuel  cost  adjustment  previously  authorized  were  suspended
        prospectively.

        In the petition,  the  owner  reiterates  that  its  own  inspection
        revealed the hot water and water pressure to be adequate;  that  the
        law does not require the superintendent live in the building; noting 
        that the superintendent lived around the  corner  from  the  subject
        premise; that fire exits are not blocked by garbage accumulation and 
        are accessible;  that  the  tenants  are  responsible  for  properly
        bagging and depositing garbage in  the  receptacles  provided;  that
        hallways are cleaned daily and mopped and swept three  (3)  times  a
        week; and that the tenants may obtain  access  to  the  basement  by
        requesting the key from the storekeeper in adjoining premises.

        The tenant  reiterated  that  all  conditions  remained  as  in  the
        complaint filed the prior year.

        After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
        the petition should be granted, in part.

        The Commissioner notes that in establishing  the  facts  below,  the
        Administrator relied on the report  of  inspection  conducted  by  a
        member of the Division inspection staff.  The report, prepared by  a
        rent agency employee, not a party to  the  proceeding,  and  not  an
        adversary to the  owner  was  properly  placed  in  the  record  for
        consideration by the Administrator and was entitled  to  substantial
        weight.

        As to the petitioner's assertion that  it  was  not  aware  that  an
        inspection was conducted the Commissioner notes that the  Division's
        procedure did not require the Administrator to give the owner notice 
        of the inspection nor to apprise the owner of the results.

        While janitorial services were properly found to be inadequate,  the
        petitioner is correct, however, the law does not require  the  owner
        to maintain a superintendent on the subject premises, as long as the 
        superintendent lives within 200 feet of the subject  premises.   The
        Administrator omission to ascertain whether the superintendent lived 
        in the immediate vicinity, as alleged by the  owner,  mandates  that
        the item be revoked as a basis for a rent reduction, for  both  rent
        controlled and rent stabilized  tenants.   Consequently,  the  $4.00
        monthly rent reduction granted to rent controlled tenants  for  lack
        of an on premises superintendent is rescinded.

        THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the   provisions   of   the   Rent
        Stabilization Code, the Rent & Eviction Regulations, Chapter 403  of
        the Laws of 1983 and Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, it is

        ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and the same is granted to the 
        extent of modifying the  Administrator's  rent  reduction  order  to







        Adm. Review Docket No.: BI-430104-RO
        delete the lack of an on-premises superintendent as a basis for rent 
        reductions.  Arrears may be due to the owner  from  rent  controlled
        tenants as a result  of  this  finding,  payable  in  equal  monthly
        installments over the course of the next three (3) months.   In  all
        other respects, the Administrator's order is affirmed. 

        ISSUED



                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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