DOCKET NUMBER: CG 410036-RT
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.: CG 410036-RT
KEITH COOPER, DRO DOCKET NO.: ZBL 410030-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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 to restoration 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.S.
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 disposed 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
other than one office chair and one cushion; and
DOCKET NUMBER: CG 410036-RT
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 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. ZAB 410073-B, are similarly irrelevant in the instant
DOCKET NUMBER: CG 410036-RT
proceeding. The tenants could have appropriately challenged the
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 almost three 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
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.