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.: CA630266RO
Toporovsky & Sons Realty Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF610051B
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN PART
On January 11, 1988, the above-name petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review of an order issued on December 15, 1987, by
the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as
3535 Dekalb Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., various apartments, wherein the
Administrator determined that the maximum legal rent for rent
controlled apartments should be reduced by $3.00 per month based upon
a diminution of services. The Rent Administrator's order was based
upon an inspection held on September 29, 1987, which disclosed that
heat and hot water services were restored but that the public areas of
the building were dirty. The Rent Administrator also directed that the
owner restore all services but did not order a rent reduction for
stabilized tenants because the tenants did not request a rent
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue
raised by the administrative appeal.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserts that the Rent Administrator's
order should be reversed because the subject building is under the
constant care of a work-out superintendent; that the public hallways
are mopped and swept on schedule and further that the building does not
have any rent controlled tenants.
The petition was served on the tenants on March 8, 1988.
The tenants answered the petition alleging that the public hallways are
still dirty and unkempt.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should be
granted in part.
A review of DHCR records reveals that there are no rent controlled
tenants in the subject building; thus confirming the owner's contention
It is apparent, therefore, that the Rent Administrator erred by issuing
a $3.00 per month rent reduction for rent controlled tenants in the
subject building and that portion of the order must be revoked.
The record before the Commissioner shows, however, that the Rent
Administrator was correct in directing that the owner restore all
services to the required level based on the inspection held on
September 29, 1987 which revealed that the public areas were dirty.
Pursuant to Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Code, the
definition of services that an owner is required to maintain includes
repairs, maintenance, and janitorial services. Therefore, the
Administrator properly directed the owner to restore services and
compliance with that directive will be determined in the restoration
proceeding which is pending with the Division.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization
Law and Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is,
granted in part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, modified, to revoke the rent reduction for rent controlled
tenants as provide hereinabove. The order of the Rent Administrator is
hereby affirmed in all other respects.
Joseph A. D'Agosta