CF610185RO
                                  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.: CF610185RO

                  CHARLES WAXMAN                   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.: BJ610143OR
                                  PETITIONER
          -----------------------------------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 19, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 16 Elliot Place, Apartment 2D, Bronx, New 
          York, wherein the Rent Administrator denied the owner's application 
          to restore rent previously reduced per Docket No. BB610698S.

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

          The owner commenced the proceeding by filing a rent restoration 
          application asserting that a majority of the service reductions 
          that gave rise to the rent reduction had been restored to the 
          subject premises.  The owner acknowledged, however, that fire 
          escapes had not been painted.

          In addition, the owner reiterated below the claim raised in the 
          administrative appeal of the underlying rent reduction order that 
          a bell and buzzer system was not a base date service.  The 
          Commissioner dismissed the owner's bare allegation therein on the 
          ground that it was beyond the scope of review.

          Thereafter, an inspection of the subject premises was conducted by 
          a DHCR inspector who reported that there was no evidence of a bell 
          and buzzer system, that the lobby bannister was missing and that 
          fire escapes to the right and left of the entrance of the building 
          were rusted and peeling paint.  The other conditions that had given 
          rise to the rent reduction were found to have been corrected. 

          Therefore, the Rent Administrator denied the owner's request for 
          rent restoration.
















          CF610185RO


          In the petition for administrative review, the owner reiterated his 
          claim that a bell and buzzer system was not a base date service, 
          asserted that the bannister had been replaced and stated that he 
          had contracted to have the fire escapes painted.

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

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          the DHCR is required to order a rent reduction, upon application by 
          a tenant, if there has been a decrease in one or more required 
          services.  The tenant's rent may be restored only if the conditions 
          have been corrected.

          The owner's statement that he contracted to have the fire escapes 
          painted suggests that the condition had not been corrected when the 
          owner filed this administrative appeal.

          Concerning the bell and buzzer system, the Commissioner notes that 
          rent restoration proceedings are limited to a determination of 
          whether the owner has corrected conditions previously found to have 
          been defective.  The owner failed to seek judicial review of the 
          administrative appeal confirming the Rent Administrator's 
          determination that a bell and buzzer system was a base date 
          service.  The owner's attempt in these rent restoration 
          proceedings, below and on appeal, to reverse that finding, 
          constitutes an impermissible collateral attack of a final 
          determination.

          The Commissioner further notes that, in an order per Docket No. 
          FK611054OR dated July 27, 1993, the Rent Administrator determined 
          that bell and buzzer system services had been restored, albeit the 
          Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application on 
          other grounds.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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