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.: CC210358RO      
                               
          Jason Chang c/o                        RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          Au Gean Management Corp.,              DOCKET NO.: BL230072HW           
                         
                                PETITIONER       PREMISES: 560 Prospect Place
                                                           Brooklyn, NY      
          -----------------------------------X                           
             ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION IN PART AND MODIFYING    
                                ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on February 26, 1988 concerning the 
          housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket 
          number.  

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

          This proceeding was commenced on December 16, 1987 by various 
          tenants filing a complaint which asserts that the owner failed to 
          maintain various services in the building. In relevant part, the 
          tenants complained of inadequate hot water services.

          In answer, the owner denied that there was inadequate hot water and 
          otherwise asserted that services are being provided and maintained.

          A DHCR staff member conducted a physical inspection on January 27, 
          1988 of Apts.1L, 2L, 5L, 11L, 16L, 17L, and 19L, and found the hot 
          water adequate (130@F). However, no access was made as to Apts. 4L, 
          8L, 9L, 10L, 14L and 15L; and 21L was empty.

          On February 4, 1988, another physical inspection was conducted. The 
          inspector was not able to gain access to  Apts.lL, 2L, 4L, 8L, 9L, 
          10L, 15L and 19L; and 21L was empty. The inspector reported 
          inadequate hot water (80@F to 100@F) in Apts. 5L, 11L, 14L, 16L and 
          17L.

          By an order dated February 26, 1988, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction. As to rent 
          controlled apartments, the maximum legal collectible rent was 
          reduced by seven and a half (7) percent per month effective on the 
          first rent payment day following the date of issuance of the order. 
          As to rent stabilized apartments, the rent was reduced to the level 












          CC210358RO

          in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced 
          before the effective date of this order; and the effective date of 
          the rent reduction was January 1, 1988, the first rent payment day 
          or the first of the month after DHCR informed the owner of the 
          tenant's complaint.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
          the hot water services were checked and found adequate at a minimum 
          of 120@F at all times. The owner questioned the accuracy of the 
          inspection.

          DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenants.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be granted in part and that the Administrator's 
          order should be modified accordingly. 

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          required to order a rent reduction where it is found that an owner 
          has failed to maintain required services. Section 2202.16 of the 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations contains similar provisions.

          The basis for DHCR's finding of decreased services is the on-site 
          inspection conducted by its staff member, a disinterested party in 
          this proceeding.  As a rule, one inspection is to be conducted in 
          order to render a determination. Follow-up inspections have been 
          allowed in those instances where access was not obtained in the 
          first instance, or when the results of an initial inspection 
          conducted at one stage of a proceeding became stale due to lengthy 
          delays before the issuance of an order, and thus were of limited 
          probative value.

          In accordance with DHCR practice as reflected above, the 
          Commissioner finds as correct the determination which is based on 
          the January 27, 1988 physical inspection which revealed hot water 
          adequate (130@F) in Apts.1L, 2L, 5L, 11L, 16L, 17L, and 19L.

          The Commissioner notes that per that first inspection, no access was 
          made as to Apts. 4L, 8L, 9L, 10L, 14L and 15L; and that 21L was 
          empty. The second inspection on February 4, 1988 is valid to the 
          extent that access was gained to these apartments.

          The Commissioner finds the determination that Apt.14L, which was 
          inspected only in the second inspection and found to have inadequate 
          hot water, was correct.

          The Commissioner also notes that apartments already inspected should 
          not have been reinspected. The Commissioner finds that the 
          determination based on the second inspection that Apts. 5L, 11L, 16L 
          and 17L had inadequate hot water did not accord with DHCR practice. 
          Rent abatements as to these apartments are revoked. 
                                          2






          CC210358RO

          The Commissioner further finds this proceeding dismissed as to the 
          apartments where no access was gained (4L, 8L, 9L, 10L, and 15L) and 
          the empty apartment (21L). Rent abatements as to these apartments 
          are revoked. The tenants have an obligation to cooperate with DHCR's 
          effort to determine the validity of their complaint. Since these 
          tenants did not comply with their obligation to cooperate with the 
          Administrator, it was improper to grant them a rent abatement.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.






          ISSUED:






                                                                       
                                              JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                              Deputy Commissioner





















                                          3                   












                                           









                                           


                  








    

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