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.:
J.R.D. MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
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.
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.
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA