DOCKET NUMBER:  CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
                                 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.: CD-230254-RO
                                         :                         CE-210107-RT
        RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT,          :  
                                            DRO   DOCKET   NO.:     BC-230006-B
           
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                           
       
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

     On April 27,1988 the above-named petitioner-owner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on April  4,  1988  by
     the District  Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz  Plaza,  Jamaica,  New  York,
     concerning the housing  accommodations  known  as  1625  East  13  Street,
     Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator reduced the  tenants'  rents
     on a finding of a building-wide reduction of services.  On May 6,  1988  a
     tenant's PAR was also filed.

     The applicable law is Section 2202.16 of the Rent Eviction Regulations and 
     Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

     The issue in these proceedings is whether the  Administrator's  order  was
     correct.  

     The tenants commenced the proceedings by filing a complaint alleging  that
     the  owner  had  failed  to  provide  or  maintain  various  building-wide
     services.  Specifically the tenants alleged that the building  entranceway
     and rear yard shrubbery was not maintained; that  alleyways  and  hallways
     were littered; that various windows were defective in that  they  admitted
     drafts and water seepage, panes were broken and frames were  deteriorated;
     that the water damaged roof allowed leaking  into  top  floor  apartments;
     that public hallway walls and ceilings had peeling paint and plaster; that 
     the exit door to the rear courtyard door was in poor condition,  and  that
     as it was not self-closing, it presented  a  security  problem;  that  the
     basement was poorly lit and filthy; that basement pipes were  rusty;  that
     the laundry room was filthy and in need of painting; that the  lobby  door
     lock did not provide adequate security; that the elevator was periodically 
     out of order, filthy and in need of repairs; that there was  severe  roach
     and rodent infestation; that there  were  periodic  plumbing  leaks;  that
     heat and hot water were inadequate; and that the water pressure was low.  

     The  tenants  also  complained  of  several   conditions   pertaining   to
     apartments, which could not be accepted for processi g  in  the  building-
     wide complaint.  In a detailed answer dated  April  30,  1987,  the  owner
     asserted that the tenants allegations were not true.  The  owner  alleged,
     among other  things,  that  the  premises  were  properly  maintained  and
     cleared; that the windows were in satisfactory conditions; that a new roof 








          DOCKET NUMBER:  CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
     had been installed in 1984; that the laundry room was well  cleaned;  that
     exterminator service were provided monthly but that many  tenants  refused
     to provide access to the exterminator, and that heat  and  water  pressure
     were adequate.  The owner indicated that the exit door from  the lobby  to
     the rear courtyard had been sealed by the previous owner at  the  tenants'
     request; that the lights in the basement were kept off since  the  tenants
     had no good reason to be there; that a new lock had been installed in  the
     lobby entrance door; and that hallway lighting was adequate  and  properly
     maintained.

     Inspections were conducted on June 8, 1987 and February  9,  1988  by  the
     Divisions inspection staff.  The February  8,  1988  inspection  confirmed
     that certain conditions had not been  resolved.   The  inspector  reported
     that the rear yard had an accumulation of debris;  that  the  public  area
     windows had broken panes; that the lobby  door  had  peeling  paint;  that
     basement lighting was not adequate that basement pipes had peeling  paint;
     and that the rear courtyard door  was  not  self-closing.   There  was  no
     evidence at the time of inspection of other conditions complained about by 
     the tenants.

     In the owner's petition, the owner indicates that the rear yard  has  been
     cleaned, that defective windows have been fixed and that the basement  has
     been repainted.   The  petitioner  reasserts  that  the  tenants  have  no
     business  in  certain  areas  of  the  basement,  but  states   that   the
     superintendent has been instructed to keep the basement  lights  on.   The
     petitioner reiterates that the rear courtyard door  was  removed  and  the
     door was sealed as a security  measure,  at  the  tenant's  request.   The
     tenants responded that the conditions cited by the Administrator  had  not
     been corrected.  With respect to the  rear  courtyard  door,  the  tenants
     argue that the doors  was  sealed  in  violation  of  the  Certificate  of
     Occupancy.

     The tenant's petition requested modification of the Administrator's  order
     to include additional conditions in the original complaint  not  cited  in
     the Administrator's findings. 

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the
     owner's and tenant petitions should be denied.

     The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order  was  based  on  the
     results of inspections below which investigated all of the allegations  in
     the tenant's complaints.   The  order  granted  rent  reductions  for  the
     conditions confirmed by inspection.  The inspection reports,  prepared  by
     rent agency employees, not parties to the proceeding, and not  adversaries
     to either the owner or the tenants, were properly placed in the record for 
     consideration by the Administrator, and were entitled  to  greater  weight
     than either the owner's or the tenants' allegations  below  and  in  their
     appeals.  As the tenant failed to establish any error of law  or  fact  by
     the Administrator, further consideration of the  tenant complaint  is  not
     warranted herein.  As to the owner, the  further  admission  at  PAR  that
     certain services had been  restored constitutes an admission as  to  those
     items, of the prior existence of conditions warranting rent reductions.










          DOCKET NUMBER:  CD-230254-RO, CE-210107-RT
     With regard to the rear courtyard door, the Commissioner notes that 
     Section 2522.4 of the Code provides  that  no  reduction  or  decrease  in
     services shall take  place  by  mutual  consent  or  otherwise,  prior  to
     approval by the Division of an owner's application to  decrease  services,
     on forms prescribed by the Division.

     Concerning the owner's argument that certain lights in the  basement  were
     turned off because the tenant's had no reason to be  in  those  areas  the
     Commissioner affirms the  Administrator's  determination  on  the  grounds
     that public access areas of the  basement  must  be  properly  lighted  to
     insure the tenants' safety.

     The owner may file an application to restore rents upon  a  showing  of  a
     restoration of services, as the facts may warrant.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law Code, it is

     ORDERED, that these petitions for administrative review be, and  the  same
     hereby are, denied, and that the order of the Rent Administrator  be,  and
     the same hereby, is affirmed.

     ISSUED:




                                                                   
                                     ELLIOT SANDER
                                     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