CB 430098 RO
                                
                        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.: CB 430098 RO

     PAUL E. KOHL                       DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: BH 430033 B
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On February 22, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  January 22,  1988.   The  order  concerned
housing accommodations located at 59 East 75th Street, New  York,
N.Y.  wherein  the  Administrator ordered  a  building-wide  rent
reduction for failure to maintain required or essential services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The tenants commenced this proceeding on August 10, 1987 by
filing  a  Statement  of  Complaint  of  Decreased  Building-Wide
Services.  The tenants complained of the following:

          1.  Failure to pick up garbage from outside apartment
              doors

          2.  Front doors difficult to open
          
          3.  No superintendent on premises
          
          4.  Workmen given free access to building
              creating security problem.  Outer doors
              left unlocked

          5.  Access can be gained to building through
              structure provided for workmen

          6.  Elevator damaged by roof construction
          
          7.  Electrical problems building-wide
          
          
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded an
opportunity  to respond.  The owner filed a response  on  October
26,  1987  wherein he alleged the following: that the garbage  is
collected  by  the superintendent and/or his helper  on  a  daily
basis;   that  the  front  doors  operated  properly;  that   the
superintendent does not reside on premises but that  his  address
and  telephone  number  were provided to the  tenants;  that  the
structure giving the workmen access has been removed and none  of
the  workmen  were given keys to the building; that the  elevator
was  repaired;  and  that  the building's  electrical  system  is
adequate.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
premises,   which  was  conducted  on  December  1,  1987.    The
inspection revealed the following:

          1.  No resident superintendent on premises and
              name, address and phone number not posted in
              lobby

          2.  Public areas dirty and in need of cleaning.
          
Based on the inspector's report, the Administrator ordered a rent
reduction  of $7.00 for all rent controlled tenants.  There  were
no rent stabilized tenants in the building.

      On appeal the owner states that the lack of cleanliness  in
the  public areas was caused by an ongoing renovation,  but  that
the  renovation has been completed and the public areas  are  now
clean.  The owner also stated that the superintendent resides off-
premises but that his name, address and beeper number are  posted
in the lobby along with that of the managing agent.

      One  tenant  filed a response wherein she stated  that  the
public areas are occasionally vacuumed, but remain unclean.  With
regard to the issue of the superintendent, the tenant stated that
his  name, address and phone number had been posted, but that  he
could  not  be reached by tenant's with a rotary dial  telephone.
The  tenant also alleged the superintendent could not be  reached
even  with  a touch dial telephone.  The owner filed a  reply  on
June  1,  1988 wherein he reiterated that the building was  being
kept  clean.  He also stated that the superintendent  whose  name
and  phone  number was posted had a beeper system.  However,  the
owner also stated that the superintendent no longer works for the
building and his replacement does not have a beeper number.   The
owner  did  not  state if the replacement superintendent's  name,
address and phone number had been posted in the lobby.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
denied.

       The  owner's  allegations  with  respect  to  public  area
cleanliness  are admissions that the areas were, in fact  unclean
but  have been subsequently cleaned.  The Commissioner notes that
one tenant disputes the owner's allegation that the areas are now
clean.   Absent any proof on the part of the owner,  the  Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the Administrator correctly ordered
the  rent  reduction  based  on the inspection  report.   If  the
condition  has  been  corrected, the  owner  may  file  for  rent
restoration.

      Similarly,  with regard to the issue of the superintendent,
the  owner has not offered any proof to rebut the report  of  the
inspector.   That report specifically stated that  the  name  and
location  of  the superintendent was not posted in  a  manner  in
which the tenants could ascertain the information.  It is settled
that the report of a DHCR inspector is entitled to more probative
weight  than  the  unsupported allegations  of  a  party  to  the
proceeding.   As  noted  above,  the  owner  may  file  for  rent
restoration  if the information regarding the superintendent  has
been properly posted.  The Administrator's order is affirmed.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction 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
                                   Acting 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