CA630293RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433




          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                                                          CA630293RO
                 PASQUALE PERRETTA/
            P & P LORILLARD REALTY CO.,           RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  BE630024B
                                   PETITIONER                      
          ----------------------------------x                               

                                                                             
             ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                                         IN PART


            On December 30, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
            petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
            November 25, 1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
            housing accommodation known as 2505 Lorillard Place, Bronx, 
            New York, wherein the Administrator determined the tenants' 
            complaints of reductions of building-wide services, directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered reductions of the maximum legal 
            rents for rent controlled tenants.  Based on the evidence, the 
            Administrator determined that rent reductions for the rent 
            stabilized tenants were not warranted.

            The Administrator found that the services were reduced based on the 
            results of an inspection conducted on July 10, 1987.  The inspector 
            reported low water pressure in three out of four apartments 
            sampled, that the fifth floor hallway lighting was inadequate, that 
            the basement floor was cracked and that window screens were missing 
            in the public area windows.  Other conditions cited in the com- 
            plaint were not confirmed.  The Examiner's progress sheet notes 
            also reflected that the tenants' complaint of lack of heat was not 
            investigated, because it was not the heating season. 

            In the instant appeal, the owner reiterates assertions below that 
            the tenants signed the complaint because they were misled to 
            believe that they were objecting to a recent MCI rent increase 
            order and that at least one signature was forged.  In support, the 
            owner submits the signed statements of ten tenants, to the effect 
            that their signatures to the complaint were solicited under false 
            pretenses.












          CA630293RO




            The owner also objects on due process grounds in that the tenants 
            had allegedly not complained of low water pressure, inadequate 
            lighting, and missing public area window screens.  The owner 
            acknowledges that the tenants' complaint referred to a defective 
            basement floor, but argues that due process would have required 
            that the owner be notified of the inspection results.

            Copies of the petition were served on the tenants on March 7, 1988.  
            A substantial number of tenants filed various answers, jointly or 
            severally, as more fully set forth below.

            A number of tenants interposed a joint response acknowledging that 
            they did not register complaints regarding the screens, low water 
            pressure or inadequate lighting.  These tenants confirmed that the 
            light bulb in the fifth floor corridor had to be replaced fre- 
            quently, possibly due to a defective light fixture, and that the 
            uneven pitch of the basement floor created a tripping hazard to 
            tenants who availed themselves of the laundry and trash disposal 
            facilities.

            Two tenants responded, among other things, denying that there was 
            any attempt to mislead or coerce anyone or that any signatures were 
            forged.

            Some tenants filed separate identical responses, to the effect that 
            the conditions found below had not been corrected.  Other tenants 
            reiterated complaints of lack of heat and hot water, and that many 
            building wide services remained inadequate, notwithstanding the 
            Administrator's dismissal of the complaints.

            An examination of the documents below shows that the enumerated 
            complaints submitted by the tenants did not include missing public 
            area window screens, inadequate water pressure or inadequate 
            lighting.  These three items were cited only in written comments 
            referring to the complaint from the rent stabilized tenant of 
            Apartment 6-F.  As no rent controlled tenants cited these items, 
            the rent controlled tenants were not entitled to the specific 
            monetary monthly rent reductions allocated to these items.  The 
            owner is correct that there was no basis in the record to consider 
            public area window screens a base date service the owner is re- 
            quired to provide.  














          CA630293RO


            Although the owner contends, below and on appeal, that the basement 
            floor was properly repaired in a manner that did not pose any 
            hazard, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
            determined that the condition reported by the inspector, a defec- 
            tive cracked floor, belied the owner's claim of adequate repairs, 
            and warranted the rent reductions granted to the rent controlled 
            tenants.  

            The owner's contention that he was denied due process because he 
            was not served a copy of the inspector's report is also without 
            merit.  Due process does not require the Administrator to serve the 
            inspection report on the owner.  The owner was afforded due process 
            rights to notice by service of the tenants' complaint. Empress 
            Manor Apartments v. DHCR, 538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642 (2nd 
            Dept., 1989).  

            The owner's allegations against some tenants, of attempts to mis- 
            lead or coerce, and of possible forgery, notwithstanding, the 
            record below and on appeal reveals that the overwhelming number of 
            tenants have not retracted their signatures from the complaint. The 
            owner's assertions below and on appeal are not sufficient to estab- 
            lish the charges.

            Rent arrears may be due the owner from rent controlled tenants as 
            a result of the fact that rent reductions of $5.00 per month that 
            were granted are hereby revoked for:

                  Low water pressure                         $ 1.00
                  Inadequate lighting in the fifth
                  floor corridor and,                          2.00
                  Missing public area window screens           2.00

                                                            ($ 5.00)
                                                               ====

            The rent arrears may be paid in equal monthly installments over the 
            course of the next twelve (12) months.

            The Commissioner also notes that the tenants' answers to the 
            owner's administrative appeal are not the proper vehicle to dispute 
            and object to the Administrator's determination dismissing the 
            remaining complaints.  In order to do this, the tenants would have 
            to have filed a timely PAR.






            THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
            Eviction Regulations, the City Rent Control Law, and the Rent  












          CA630293RO

            Stabilization Law and Code, it is,

            ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, in 
            part, to the extent of amending the Administrator's order to revoke 
            rent reductions granted based on findings of inadequate water 
            pressure, inadequate lighting, and missing public area window 
            screens.  The Administrator's findings regarding the defective 
            basement floor are 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