STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: CG 410036-RT
       KEITH COOPER,                        DRO DOCKET NO.: ZBL 410030-OR
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On July  5,  1988,  the  above  named  petitioner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on June 21, 1988 by the Rent 
     Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning  the
     housing accommodations known as 405 West 45th Street, Various  Apartments,
     New  York,  New  York,  wherein  the  Administrator  granted  the  owner's
     application for a restoration of rent.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of  the  record  concerning  the  issues
     raised in the administrative appeal.

     This proceeding was initiated on December 11,  1987  by  the  owner  (C.W.
     Properties) filing an application to restore rent, alleging that the items 
     previously found to warrant a rent reduction under Docket No. Z B  410073-
     B, i.e., 1) defective entrance door, 2) accumulation of  garbage  in  rear
     courtyard  and  3)  inadequate  number   of   garbage   cans,   had   been
     satisfactorily corrected.  The owner specified that a  new  entrance  door
     had been  installed  along  with  the  required  lock  hardware  (invoices
     submitted); that there are 10 garbage cans presently in use, which  is  an
     adequate number for the building size; and that the  garbage  accumulation
     problem had been alleviated due to the increased number of  garbage  cans,
     more careful garbage disposal by the tenants, and continual monitoring  of
     the situation by the building staff.

     In response to the application, Tenant Representative Keith Cooper alleged 
     in pertinent part that the owner did not replace the  entrance  door,  but
     merely reversed the existing door in such a way  as  to  adversely  affect
     entry into the  building;  and  that  garbage  still  accumulates  at  the
     premises.  In addition, the tenant submitted an  inspection  report  dated
     December 7, 1987, prepared by the Division's Enforcement Bureau (referring 
     to Docket No. 17,521/532-HL) which disclosed,  among  other  things,  that
     there was an excessive amount of overflow garbage found in the west  court
     of the premises.

     On February 26,  1988,  a  Division  staff  member  conducted  a  physical
     inspection of the subject premises and reported that:

               1) the entrance door is not defective;

               2) no accumulation of garbage in the rear courtyard 

          DOCKET NUMBER: CG 410036-RT
                  other than one office chair and one cushion; and
               3) there are twelve garbage cans  in the collection  

     In the order issued on  June  21,  1988,  the  Administrator  granted  the
     owner's application  based  on  the  results  of  the  February  26,  1988

     In the petition, the tenants seek reversal of the Order on  the  following

          1) the instant proceeding had been initially commenced upon the
             tenants' filing of two complaints, dated January 28, 1986 and
             April 20, 1986.  The former complaint concerned, in addition
             to the items specified in the order appealed from, other 
             items  (e.g.,  inadequate  extermination  service,   defective
             hallway lights, etc.),  and  the  latter  complaint  concerned
             the owner's alleged failure  to  provide  a  two-way  intercom
             system.  Although the owner's PAR against the  original  order
             of rent reduction was denied (Docket No. BB-110236-RO,  issued
             August 12, 1987),  no  determination  has  been  made  by  the
             Division as  to  the  other  remaining  items  in  the  former
             complaint  and  the  intercom  allegation.   Consequently  the
             order appealed from only addresses part of the problem.

          2) the tenants resubmit a copy of the Enforcement Bureau's 
             December 7, 1987 inspection report and list, in addition to 
             the aforementioned item regarding overflow garbage in the 
             west court, numerous other items cited therein regarding 
             defective conditions which  are  unrelated  to  those  of  the
             instant  proceeding  (e.g.,  public  hallways   in   need   of
             cleaning, individual apartment problems, etc.).

     In answer to the petition, the owner states in  pertinent  part  that  the
     conditions which formed the sole basis for  the  rent  reduction  in  this
     proceeding were corrected, as was  confirmed  by  the  Division's  on-site

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

     Review of the record in the instant case reveals  that  the  Administrator
     based his determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
     February 26, 1988 inspection  which  disclosed  that  each  of  the  items
     previously  found  to  warrant  a  rent  reduction  had  been   corrected.
     Therefore,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  Administrator   correctly
     determined that the owner had restored services  to  the  required  level,
     and properly restored the tenants' rent.

     Concerning the tenant's assertion that two complaints were initially filed 
     in this proceeding, a review of the file of  the  initial  rent  reduction
     proceeding, under Docket No. AB 410073-B, reveals that only one  complaint
     was filed therein, the complaint dated January 28, 1986.   Therefore,  the
     tenant's allegation  as  to  intercom  system  is  not  relevant  to  this

     The allegations that were raised in the initial  services  complaint,  but
     were not recognized by the Administrator as warranting  a  rent  reduction
     under Docket No. AB 410073-B, are  similarly  irrelevant  in  the  instant
     proceeding.   The  tenants  could  have   appropriately   challenged   the

          DOCKET NUMBER: CG 410036-RT
     Administrator's non-recognition of such allegations  by  filing  a  timely
     petition  for  review  of  the  initial  order  of  rent  reduction.   The
     Division's records reveal that the tenants failed to do so.

     As to the December 7, 1987 inspection report, the  disclosure  therein  of
     overflow garbage found in the west court of the subject premises does  not
     contradict the inspector's  finding  of  no  garage  accumulation  in  the
     instant case, which was made 2 1/2 months after December 7, 1987.   Review
     of the remaining items listed in the December 7,  1987  inspection  report
     shows that  such  items  are  unrelated  to  those  of  the  instant  rent
     restoration proceeding. 

     This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file a new 
     complaint for a reduction in services with the Division as the  facts  may

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is, denied and the Rent 
     Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                             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