BK630015RO



                                  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.: BK630015RO 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          Artha Management, Inc.                DOCKET NO.: AI630080B      
                                                
                                                         
                                 PETITIONER  
          ----------------------------------x                      
                                                                       

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     
                          
          On November 4, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on     
          October 23, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1954 Unionport Road, Bronx, N.Y., various 
          apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that there was a 
          diminution of services and reduced the rent by $6.00 per month for 
          all rent controlled tenants in the building.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartments.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserts, in substance, that it was 
          denied due process because as current owners, it was not served 
          with a copy of the tenants' complaint and further that the act of 
          failing to remove rubbish was excusable because of its 
          rehabilitation of the premises.

          The record reveals that on September 23, 1986, one rent controlled 
          tenant filed a complaint alleging a decrease in building-wide 
          services, including lack of superintendent services, dirty public 
          halls and an accumulation of garbage in public areas.

          An answer was filed which alleged that all repairs had been made.  












          BK630015RO


          Based on a physical inspection on January 6, 1987, which revealed 
          that the halls and stairs were soiled and there was rubbish on the 
          back and side of the building, the Administrator issued the rent 
          reduction order appealed herein.

          The petition was served on the tenants on December 22, 1987 and on 
          February 2, 1988, the tenant who had filed the complaint filed an 
          answer to the petition stating that the owner had failed to correct 
          the service conditions noted in the rent reduction order of October 
          23, 1987. 

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          For rent controlled tenants Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner has 
          failed to maintain essential services may result in an order of 
          decrease in maximum rent, in a amount determined by the discretion 
          of the Rent Administrator.  The rent reduction is to be in an 
          amount which the Administrator finds to be the reduction rental 
          value of the housing accommodation because of the decrease in 
          essential services and therefore results in a rent reduction for 
          all rent controlled tenants in the building regardless of whether 
          they joined in the complaint.  Essential services are defined by 
          Section 2200.3(b) to include janitorial services and the removal of 
          refuse.

          The record reveals that Artha Management, Inc. became the managing 
          agent of the subject building, on September 18, 1986, and that the 
          complaint was filed on September 25, 1986.

          The Commissioner has considered the owner's claim on appeal that it 
          was denied its right of due process because of the DHCR's failure 
          to serve it with a copy of the tenants' complaint and finds this 
          claim to be without basis.

          In a letter dated November 3, 1986, the petitioner,  Artha Manage-
          ment, Inc., informed the Division that:

               Please be advised that Alfred Groner and A. Kim Realty are no 
               longer the owners and managing agents of the subject premises.  
               The building was net-leased by 1954 Unionport Associates on 
               September 18, 1986 and is managed by Artha Management, Inc.  
               As the new managing agents, we hereby seek permission to 
               answer this complaint.  



          Moreover, the petitioner clearly stated in its appeal that "we did 
          receive a copy of the complaint with the above cited Docket Number 








          (ZA630080B), but it pertained to apartment 1-D only."

          Not only was the prior owner served with a copy of the complaint,
          but the Commissioner finds that the petitioner (managing agent) was 
          cognizant of and participated in the proceedings below.

          The owner is advised that although only one tenant filed the 
          complaint, since that tenant was rent controlled, the Administrator 
          properly ordered rent reductions for all rent controlled tenants in 
          the building to reflect the decreased rental value of those 
          apartments. 

          The Commissioner also finds the petitioner's contention that the 
          rehabilitation of the subject building excused the existence of 
          dirt and debris in and around the building to be without merit.  

          The owner remains obligated to maintain services even during the 
          rehabilitation of the premises.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site inspection conducted in the subject building.
           
          The Division's records show that the Rent Administrator partially 
          restored rent on April 12, 1989, under Docket Number CI630046OR, in 
          the amount of $3.00 per month for each rent controlled apartment 
          and that the owner's application for restoration of the remaining 
          $3.00 per month is pending under Docket No. HB6301210R. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is,

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.



          ISSUED:                                    



                                             ___________________             
                                             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