CA230235RO
                                  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.: CA230235RO  
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: BE230028B       
                    
               Parkway Realty Associates,
                                                
                                             
                                                         
                                 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 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 












          CA230235RO

          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 
          said receiver.

               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.


          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