BL630103RO                                  
                                    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.:              
BL630103RO
               J.R.D. MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BD630058B 
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          On December 17, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          November 10, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 340 East Mosholu Parkway, Bronx, 
          New York, various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined 
          that the rents of rent controlled apartments in the subject 
          building should be reduced by $8.00 per month effective on the 
          first rent payment day following the issue date of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and the rents of rent stabilized tenants 
          should not be reduced because rent stabilized tenants did not 
          request a rent reduction.  In the latter case, the Rent Adminis- 
          trator directed the owner to restore services.

          The order was based upon an inspection held on September 4, 1987, 
          which showed that although the owner was maintaining a number of 
          services, other services were not being maintained.  Specifically, 
          the inspection showed the following service deficiencies:

               1.   The sixth floor ceiling and wall to the right 
                    of the elevator is peeling paint and plaster 
                    due to a roof leak.

               2.   The third floor hallway windows are cracked.

               3.   The vestibule wall next to the door is water 
                    damaged and peeling paint and plaster.

          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.












          BL630103RO                                  



          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the various rent-controlled tenants in the subject 
          building based upon a decrease in building-wide services.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted in substance that the Rent 
          Administrator erred by reducing the rents of all rent-controlled 
          tenants because only seven rent-controlled tenants signed the 
          complaint;  that not all of the rent-controlled tenants who signed 
          the complaint requested a rent reduction and that some tenants were 
          not affected by the service deficiencies.

          The petition was served on the tenants on January 22, 1988 and the 
          tenants filed answers to the petition stating that they were 
          desirous of rent reductions and that the repair-work was not 
          completed in a workmanlike manner.

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

          A Statement of Building-wide Complaint was filed on April 22, 1987 
          by various tenants in the building.  In answer to the complaint, 
          the owner asserted that all repairs had been or would be completed.

          On September 4, 1987, an inspection was conducted of the subject 
          premises.  The inspection report confirmed the existence of a 
          number of service deficiencies noted in the tenants' complaint.

          The Commissioner has considered the owner's claim that the Rent 
          Administrator erred by reducing the rents of the rent-controlled 
          tenants and rejects this argument.

          Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides, in 
          pertinent part, that the Administrator may order a decrease of the 
          maximum rent otherwise allowable based on a finding that there has 
          been a decrease in essential services required to be provided.  The 
          rent is to be decreased by that amount which the Administrator 
          finds to be the reduction in the rental value as a result of the 
          decrease in services.  If there is a finding of decrease of a 
          building-wide service, the rental value of all controlled apart- 
          ments in the building is affected.

          Despite the fact that the rent reduction box on the tenants' 
          complaint form was not checked by the tenants' representative, all 
          rent-controlled tenants are entitled to a rent reduction where 
          building-wide service deficiencies are shown as long as at least 
          one rent-controlled tenant has signed the complaint.









          BL630103RO                                  

          The Commissioner has also considered the owner's contention on 
          appeal that only those tenants specifically affected by a service 
          deficiency are entitled to rent reductions and finds this argument 
          to be without basis.

          The tenants filed a building-wide service complaint in the instant 
          proceeding and are entitled to a reduction in the maximum legal 
          rent based on the finding that building-wide services are not being 
          maintained.  All tenants are "affected" by a diminution in such 
          building-wide services as a leaking roof, cracked public hallway 
          windows, and water-damaged public area walls.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record including the results of the on- 
          site physical inspection conducted on September 4, 1987; that 
          pursuant to Section 2202.16(a) of the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          the Administrator acted properly in reducing the rent upon deter- 
          mining that the owner had failed to maintain services.

          The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration 
          application has been granted (DF630238OR).


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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the 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