ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.
                                  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 NOS.:              
                                                 CH 610100 RO;
                                              :  CL 630354 RT;
                                                 CH 620096 RT;
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S        
                                                 DOCKET NOS.:
                                                 BL 630059 OR;               
            ERNEST RICHMAN-PETITIONER/TENANT     CI 610013 RP
            ADBAR REALTY-PETITIONER/OWNER                                  
                                                  

                                              : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

          .ORDER AND OPINION DENYING TENANT'S PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
                     REVIEW AND TERMINATING OWNER'S PETITION FOR
                            ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AS MOOT

               On December 22, 1988, the above-named petitioner tenant filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          December 6, 1988 (CI 610013 RP) by the Rent Administrator at Gertz 
          Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 2015 Newbold Avenue, Bronx, New York.  The appeal was 
          assigned Docket No. CL 630354 RT.   

               The proceedings below (Docket No. CI 610013 RP) were conducted 
          pursuant to a Commissioner's order, dated February 9, 1988, that 
          remanded the proceedings to the Administrator to reconstruct the 
          file and to reconsider issues raised in rent reduction and related 
          rent restoration proceedings.

               The challenged order (CI 610013 RP) affirmed the 
          Administrator's rent reduction order (AG 630103 B) issued on March 
          17, 1987, and restored the tenants' rents to the levels in effect 
          prior to the rent abatements, effective March 1, 1988.  The 
          Administrator noted that there was evidence that the rear alleyway 
          step defects that had given rise to the rent reductions had been 
          corrected, in that the inspection conducted on February 26, 1988 in 
          rent restoration proceedings under Docket No. BL 630059 OR, had   
          indicated that steps in the rear alleyway had been repaired, and 
          that the other conditions that had given rise to the rent 
          reductions had been corrected.  The Administrator's order under  
            














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.

          Docket No. BL 630059 OR, dated July 18, 1988, had, nevertheless, 
          denied rent restoration, based on the inspector's report of broken
          lobby steps.  The December 6, 1988 order (CI 610013 RP) reversed 
          the July 18, 1988 determination, and restored the tenants' rents, 
          noting that broken lobby steps were not a subject of the underlying 
          rent reductions.

               However, the Administrator had not considered the objections 
          of at least two tenants that had responded to the Administrator's 
          notice reopening the proceedings.  The tenants had asserted that 
          the owner had removed, and never replaced, the rear alleyway steps. 

               The tenant's appeal of the December 6, 1988 order reiterates 
          the charge.  Therefore, an inspection was conducted on June 25, 
          1992.  The inspector reported no evidence of a broken stairway in 
          the location that went from Pugsley Avenue into the rear alleyway 
          identified by the petitioner.  In light of two separate inspection 
          reports, several years apart indicating, that rear alleyway steps 
          were not defective, there is no warrant to disturb the 
          Administrator's December 6, 1988 order (CI 610013 RP) that restored 
          the rents. 

               The tenant indicates that he filed the PAR as the authorized 
          tenant representative.  The Commissioner notes, however, that 
          Section 2529.2 of the Code requires that a PAR must be verified or 
          affirmed by each person joining therein, and that a PAR filed by a 
          representative must include, at the time of filing the PAR, written
          evidence of authorization to act in such representative capacity 
          for the purpose of filing the PAR.  The one tenant that signed the
          PAR failed to present written evidence of authority to act in a 
          representative capacity.  It is, therefore, deemed that the
          petitioner tenant filed individually.

               The tenant's petition per Docket No. CH 620096 RT challenging 
          the July 18, 1988 order (BL 630059 OR), likewise, is denied. The 
          question of broken steps was rendered moot by reason of the 
          Administrator's December 6, 1988 order (CI 630013 RP) superseding 
          the prior proceedings per Docket No. BL 630059 OR, and restoring 
          the rent effective March 1, 1988 based on findings, detailed above, 
          that there was no evidence of broken rear alleyway steps, now or 
          then.

               The tenant's further assertion in that appeal (CH 620096 RT) 
          that public areas were still not cleaned properly is insufficient 
          to warrant reconsideration of the Administrator's determination 
          that the public ares were cleaned at the time of inspection.  The 




          Administrator's determination (BL 630059 OR) was based on the 
          report of an agency inspector.  His impartial observations were 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: CH 610100 RO ETC.

          properly placed on the record for the Administrator's consideration 
          and were entitled to and were afforded great weight.   

               The owner's administrative appeal (CH 610100 RO) challenging 
          the July 18, 1988 order (BL 630059 OR) that denied the owner's rent 
          restoration application on the grounds of broken lobby steps, is 
          terminated as moot, by reason of the Administrator's December 6, 
          1988 superseding order (CI 630013 RP), restoring the rent effective 
          March 1, 1988.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, the City Rent Control Law and the City 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

               ORDERED, that the Administrator's order per Docket No. CI 
          610013 RP be affirmed, that the tenant's petitions per Docket Nos. 
          CL 630354 RT and CH 620096 RT be denied, and that the owner's 
          petition per Docket No. CH 610100 RO be terminated as moot in 
          accordance with the above.  
               
          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