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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  CI130123RO
                                                  NO.:  CA130209OR

               On September 20, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued August 17, 1988. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 42-15 43rd Avenue, Sunnyside, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator ordered partial rent restoration for rent 
          controlled tenants of the building and denied the owner's 
          application for rent restoration for rent stabilized tenants .

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on July 27, 1987 by filing 
          an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it alleged that it had 
          restored services for which a rent reduction order had been issued 
          by the Administrator (see Docket No. AK 130035 B).  In that rent 
          reduction order, the Administrator had ordered the rent of rent 
          controlled tenants reduced by $20.00 per month and the rent of rent 
          stabilized tenants reduced by an amount equal to the most recent 
          guideline adjustment.  The rent restoration application was served 
          on the tenants.  Numerous responses were received from the tenants 
          wherein they objected to the granting of the owner's application, 
          claiming that services had not been restored.

                    The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the 
          subject building.  The inspection was conducted on May 26, 1988 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Roof level walls and chimney walls are not cracked 
                         and loose,

                    2.   Laundry rooms, terrazzo floors and hallway stairs 
                         are not dirty,


                    3.   No evidence of uneven sidewalks.

          The inspector also reported that repairs had not been completed to 
          cracked hallway window panes and defective or missing window 
          handles throughout the building.  Furthermore, the bulkhead walls 
          and ceilings were found to have peeling paint and plaster and be 
          blistered and discolored due to leakage.                 

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          17, 1988 and partially granted the owner's application with respect 
          to rent controlled tenants.  Rent restoration of $8.00 per month
          was ordered to be effective September 1, 1988.  The owner was 
          advised to refile for the remaining $12.00 per month when the 
          remaining services described above had been restored.  Rent 
          restoration was denied for rent stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, through counsel, makes the following 
          arguments in support of its petition for administrative review:

                    1.   The owner should have been informed of the 
                         scheduled inspection,

                    2.   The Administrator's order is defective in that it 
                         does not state that all complaining tenants were 
                         directly affected by the services decreases which 
                         still remain to be corrected,

                    3.   The remaining conditions do not warrant a rent 

               The tenants filed a joint response on November 17, 1988 
          wherein they stated, in sum, that the owner had failed to repair 
          the remaining defects and wherein they submitted photographic 
          evidence in support of their position.  Two tenants filed 
          individual responses but did not raise issues material to the 
          owner's allegations in the petition for administrative review.  The 
          owner filed a reply on December 30, 1988 and stated that the 
          tenants had not addressed the arguments in the petition and further 
          stated that the petition should be granted for the reasons set 
          forth above.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Addressing the owner's arguments in the order presented, 
          numerous prior decisions of the Commissioner have held that due 
          process does not require that an owner be notified of a DHCR 
          inspection nor does the owner have the right to be present when one 
          is conducted.  The courts have upheld this determination (see 
          Empress Manor Apts. v. DHCR 147 A.D.2d 642, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd 
          Dept., 1989]).


               Similarly, prior decisions have also held that there is no 
          requirement that the Administrator find that the complaining 
          tenants are specifically affected by the diminution in building- 
          wide services.  The Commissioner has held that all the tenants are 
          entitled to properly functioning building-wide services and that 
          all complaining tenants are "affected" by a diminution thereof 
          (Accord: BD420268RO).

               The owner's final argument, that the remaining conditions do 
          not warrant the continuation of a rent reduction, is also rejected.  
          The Administrator's findings in the original rent reduction order 
          clearly included the fact that the bulkhead walls were water 
          damaged and that there were various cracked hallway window panes 
          and broken handles.  It is settled law that, in order for the owner 
          to obtain rent restoration, it must demonstrate that these 
          conditions have been corrected.  The owner failed to do this.  Any 
          attempt to argue that the remaining conditions do not warrant a 
          rent reduction is an impermissible collateral attack on a final 

               In sum, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the 
          Administrator properly issued the order here under review based on 
          the entire record, including the on-site physical inspection 
          conducted on August 17, 1988.  The order is, therefore, affirmed.  

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          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.


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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