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.: CF430105RO      
                               
          345 River Company c/o                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          Robert M. Olshener, P.C.,              DOCKET NO.: BF410039B            
                        
                                PETITIONER       PREMISES: 345 Riverside Dr.
                                                           New York, NY      
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on May 13, 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 June 18, 1987 by various rent- 
          stabilized tenants filing a complaint which asserts that the owner 
          failed to maintain various services in the building. In relevant 
          part, the tenants stated that "the elevator breaks down or traps 
          people in it."
           
          On September 1, 1987, a copy of the complaint was mailed to the  
          owner, with a notice that the owner had twenty-one (21) days to 
          interpose an answer. There is no record of the owner's answer to the 
          complaint.

          A physical inspection of the subject building was conducted on March 
          11, 1988 by a DHCR staff member who reported that the elevator is 
          out of order.

          By an order dated May 13, 1988, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in 
          substance that there is an elevator maintenance company responsible 
          for this breakdown; there was no service call during the period of 
          inspection; and for the Administrator to reduce rent based on a 
          single inspection, and not a course of conduct, is an abuse of 
          discretion. Attached to the petition are copies of the elevator 
          maintenance contract, paid bills since 1984 concerning this 
          maintenance, and a statement from the elevator company that there 












          CF430105RO

          were no service calls about an elevator breakdown in February and 
          March 1988.

          On August 2, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenants 
          who filed an answer, stating in substance that the petition was not  
          timely filed; that the attorney in the petition was not authorized 
          to represent the owner; that copies of the owner's paid bills to the 
          elevator maintenance company indicate a gap of payments in 1987 when 
          the tenants experienced breakdowns; and that the owner knew of this 
          persistent condition and could not claim the complaint as one 
          isolated incident occurring only at the time of inspection. The 
          tenants submitted copies of letters from the period of May 3, 1987 
          through June 16, 1987, written by individual tenants and various 
          chairs of the tenants associations to the owner who should be 
          informed of the elevator being out of order. The tenants asserted 
          that the on-site inspection merely confirmed the existence of a 
          protracted period of elevator breakdowns resulting in a serious 
          decrease in service.

          In reply, the owner stated that attached to its petition was a 
          Notice of Appearance authorizing representation and that DHCR still 
          has to prove a course of conduct to reduce rent, not just a single 
          inspection confirming an inoperative elevator.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be denied. 

          Despite the tenants' assertions to the contrary, the Commissioner 
          finds that this petition was timely filed based on the evidence of 
          certified mailing with return receipt; and that the owner is 
          properly represented by an attorney and/or his law office based on 
          the Notice of Appearance submitted.  

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          required to order a rent reduction, upon application by tenants, 
          where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required 
          services. Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to 
          include repairs and maintenance of elevator services.

          The record shows that the Administrator based his determination on 
          the entire evidence of record, including the results of DHCR's March 
          11, 1988 inspection report which identified and corroborated the 
          complained of condition. Accordingly, the Administator's 
          determination was proper in all respects and is hereby sustained.

          The owner's rent restoration application (CE410209OR) was granted on 
          December 14, 1988.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          Order and Opinion.
                                          2 












          CF430105RO


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

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




          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