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.: CA230235RO
DOCKET NO.: BE230028B
Parkway Realty Associates,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on December 4, 1987
concerning the housing accommodations known as 1809 Albermarle
Road, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that
certain conditions found in the subject building constituted
building-wide services decreases.
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 the petition.
The tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint
asserting that the owner had failed to maintain the subject
premises and certain services, A copy of the complaint was served
on the then owner.
An inspection of the subject premises was conducted on July
13, 1987 by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of
defective conditions, in that several public areas reflected
inadequate janitorial services, the lobby windows had broken panes
and defective sills, the public area walls and ceilings were
cracked, an exterior light was broken and intercom systems in three
of the four wings (designated areas "A", "B", and "C") were
inoperative.The inspector also reported that no doorman services
were provided at the time of inspection.
In response to a request by the Administrator, dated October
1, 1987, to comment on the tenants' claim that the owner had
eliminated doorman services after 4:00 p.m., the owner responded
that as the premises are in a high-crime area, security services
were provided by a neighborhood security organization that
patrolled the area, including the public areas in the building.
Based on the results of the inspection, as well as a finding
that the owner had defaulted, in that the owner had failed to file
an answer the tenants' complaint, the Rent Administrator reduced
the tenants' legal regulated rents, and further, directed
restoration of the services, including doorman services.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner states
that an answer to the complaint was filed on June 8, 1987, a copy
of which is enclosed with the petition. Therein, the owner had
denied the allegations set forth on the complaint or, otherwise
asserted, that required repairs had been or would be completed,
that any then current conditions were tenant induced or that the
complaint repeated previous claims. The owner stated among other
things, that the tenants are instructed"... not to sit in the lobby
and act as doorman but rather to patrol the entire premises...".
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code,
DHCR is authorized to order rent reductions, upon application by a
tenant, where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain
required services. Under Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations, DHCR is authorized to order rent reduction where it is
found that the owner has failed to maintain the premises and
essential services,among other things.
The owner's petition does not establish any basis for
modifying or revoking the Administrator's order, which determined
that the owner was not maintaining the premises and essential
services, based on a physical inspection confirming the existence
of defective conditions in the subject premises for which rent
reductions are warranted.
Assuming that the owner's June 8, 1987 answer was received,
but not considered by the Administrator, the Commissioner finds
that the owner's claims of adequate repairs and services were
belied by the inspector's subsequent observations on July 13, 1987,
that the premises and services were not being maintained.
A search of DHCR records also reveals that on October 7, 1988
the Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application
per Docket No. CD230091OR. If the facts so warrant, a new
application may be filed.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement for
stabilized tenants that resulted by the filing of this petition is
vacated upon issuance of this order.
The Commissioner also notes that records show that a receiver
was appointed for the subject premises by a Federal Court Order,
signed on August 4, 1991. A copy of the order shall be served on
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Law and Regulations for New York
City, 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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta