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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: BK120233RT 
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: AB1300780OR      
            James Colangelo, on behalf of                                    
              Sanford Imperial Tenants 
                Association (SITA)
               On November 25, 1987, the above-named petitioner-tenant 
          representative filed a petition for administrative review of an 
          order issued on November 16, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, 
          concerning the housing accommodation known as 144-58 Sanford 
          Avenue, Queens, New York, wherein the Administrator granted the 
          owner's application to restore rents previously reduced by an order 
          issued on February 20, 1986 per Docket Number QC800526B.

               The Administrator had reduced the tenants' rents based on 
          findings of peeling paint on the third and sixth floor ceilings and 
          hallway areas, stains on the third floor ceiling, a broken hall 
          window, a defective intercom system, and a dirty playground area.  
          These findings were affirmed in an administrative review order 
          issued on September 26, 1986 per Administrative Review Docket 
          Numbers ART07978Q/ARL08297Q/ARL00300Q.

               The owner's application filed on February 27, 1986, indicated 
          that services had been restored, but otherwise failed to give a 
          description of the restored services, to give the date of 
          restoration, or to furnish receipts or other evidence of 

               Copies of the application were served on the tenants on April 
          10, 1986, who interposed an answer on April 24, 1986, by their 
          tenants' representative, disputing the owner's claims of adequate 
          repairs.  Of particular note, the tenants stated that the roof 
          still leaked, that the intercoms did not function properly despite 
          the owner's repairs, that some hallways still had peeling paint 
          even though the areas had been painted, and that playground areas 
          were still dirty.


               The challenged order granted the owner's application to 
          restore rents effective May 1, 1986 based on the results of an 
          inspection conducted on August 20, 1987 by a member of the 
          Division's inspection staff.  The inspector reported peeling paint 
          and plaster on the sixth floor hallway and ceiling, but no  
          evidence of the other defective conditions previously noted.

               In this appeal, the tenants, by their representative, object 
          to the May 1, 1986 effective date of rent restoration, and question 
          some of the inspector's observations on August 20, 1987.

               The tenants claim that the owner had not commenced roof 
          repairs until September 1987, which were still not complete on the 
          date of the petition, November 24, 1987.  The tenants also claim 
          that the playground area was never cleaned properly.  The tenants 
          acknowledge that new hallway windows were installed on March 1987, 
          that the intercom was replaced in April 1987, and that hallways and 
          ceiling were repaired in June 1987.

               Copies of the appeal were served on the owner on January 15, 
          1988, and upon the owner's attorneys on April 27, 1993.

               The record below, including the owner's and tenant's 
          statements is equivocal.  It suggests that, while permanent repairs 
          and extensive building-wide replacement of equipment were not 
          completed until 1987, the owner took action to correct various 
          specific conditions.

               This is borne out by an inspection conducted on June 16, 1986, 
          in connection with Compliance Bureau proceedings subsequent to the 
          Administrator's January 13, 1986 rent reduction order.  The 
          inspection was conducted to investigate the tenants' claim of non- 
          compliance with respect to the defective roof and dirty playground. 
          The inspector indicated that the roof repair had been completed and 
          that there were no breaks or defects in the roof, and that the 
          playground area was clean and free of debris at the time of 
          inspection.  The inspector further reported that a spot check of 
          intercoms showed them to be operating and that the third and sixth 
          floor ceilings showed no sign of the peeling paint and water stains 
          found in October 1985.

               Peeling paint was reported in the August 1987 inspection.  
          However, these defects, occurring almost two years after the 
          initial inspection in October 1985, but not evident in the June 
          1986 non-compliance inspection, are too distant to be considered a 
          continuation of the initial October 1985 condition, but rather, 
          appear to be a new occurrence. 


               In regard to the tenants' assertion below and on appeal that 
          the playground area has never been cleaned properly, the 
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the observation of the 
          DHCR inspectors, who are impartial agency employees and not parties 
          to the proceedings.  

               It is further noted that as there was no finding of defective 
          playground equipment in the underlying rent reduction proceedings, 
          there was no basis to consider the tenants' claim herein.  Rent 
          restoration proceedings are strictly limited to a determination of 
          whether the owner has restored services found to have been reduced.

               The documentation submitted by the tenants for the first time 
          on appeal may not be considered, as the material was not before  
          the Administrator for his consideration, and therefore beyond the 
          scope of review in this proceeding.

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

               ORDERED, that the tenants' petition be denied and that the 
          Administrator's order be affirmed.


                                                  Joseph A. D'Agosta         
                                                  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