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

          APPEALS OF                            DOCKET NOS.: CJ410307RT
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                  GUDMUND BERG,                 DOCKET NOS.: CA430103B

               On October 18, 1988 and February 3, 1989, the above-named 
          petitioner-tenant filed petitions for administrative review (PARs) 
          of orders issued on September 12, 1988 and December 30, 1988, by 
          the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known 
          as 202 East 31st Street, New York, N.Y. Apt # 303, wherein the 
          Administrator determined in Docket No. CA430103B that, based on the 
          evidence, a rent reduction is not warranted even though the tenant 
          requested a rent reduction and that in Docket No. CA410288S, the 
          tenant's application for a rent reduction based upon a decrease in 
          services should be denied.  In the latter proceeding, the Rent 
          Administrator found that the tenant did not provide apartment 
          access to the DHCR inspector on November 21, 1988 and November 23, 

               These proceedings are being consolidated as they involve common 
          grounds of law and fact.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered the portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the administrative appeals.

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the tenant's applications.


          The record in Docket NO.: CA430103B reveals that on January 28, 
          1988, the tenant of  the subject single room occupancy (SRO) 
          building filed a statement of complaint of a decrease in building- 
          wide services in which he alleged that the water had been turned 
          off in the east wing of the building, that linen service and toilet 
          paper have been eliminated, that the bathroom floor on the third 
          floor is caving in, and that there is no light at the entrance to 
          the building.

          Inspections on May 15 and August 2, 1988 revealed that there was 
          adequate lighting at the entrance to the building, there was water 
          in the east wing, there was no toilet paper throughout the building 
          but the inspector was unable to determine if linen service is 
          provided, and the floor around the toilet on the third floor was 
          cracked and soft.

          The order issued on September 12, 1988 determined, based on the 
          inspector's report, that a rent reduction was not warranted, but 
          directed the owner to restore the toilet paper and repair the 
          bathroom floor.

          In the petition for administrative review of this order, the tenant 
          asserts, in substance that the administrator failed to investigate 
          the claim regarding linen service and that the finding of decreased 
          services mandates a rent reduction.

          In the second proceeding, the tenant filed a complaint on January 
          28, 1988 alleging that the mattress needs to be replaced, painting 
          and plastering needs to be done, there are holes in the floor, 
          there is mice infestation, and there is no water in the room.

          In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that the mattress was 
          replaced, that cold water will be restored as soon as plumbing 
          repairs throughout the building are completed, and that the tenant 
          has refused access for other repairs or for the exterminator.

          The tenant replied, through counsel, stating that the replacement 
          mattress is unacceptable, that the tenant was deprived of running 
          water for three months while plumbing repairs were being done, that 
          access has not been denied but has been limited to times when the 
          tenant could be home, and that the tenant has never been notified 
          that an exterminator was coming.  The tenant asked that all future 
          correspondence be sent to his attorney.


          The Division scheduled an inspection for November 21, 1988 and sent 
          the tenant notice of the inspection on November 14, 1988.  The 
          inspector could not gain access and left a letter advising that he 
          would return on November 23, 1988.  No access was obtained then 

          An order was issued on December 30, 1988 denying the application 
          and terminating the proceeding.

          In the petition for review of this order, the tenant, through 
          counsel, states that he did receive notice of the November 21, 1988 
          inspector and waited outside the building for the inspector until 
          12:30 and then had to go to work.  He said he never received any 
          notice of the November 23, 1988 inspection and explained that he 
          had asked that all communication with him be made through his 
          attorney because the mail delivery in his building is erratic and 
          unreliable in that it is distributed by the owner's employees.  He 
          also explained that the building has no door bells and no phones 
          and the inspector cannot gain access unless someone waits outside 
          to let him in.  The tenant asked that the case be remanded to the 
          Administrator for another inspection to be scheduled on a Thursday 
          or Friday when the tenant does not work and that notice be sent to 
          the tenant's attorney.

          After careful consideration of the evidence, the Commissioner is of 
          the opinion that both proceedings should be remanded.

          It is noted at the outset that the status of subject accommodation 
          cannot be determined from the record and on remand the 
          Administrator should investigate whether the unit is rent 
          controlled or rent stabilized.  An appropriate rent reduction 
          should then be ordered for the finding based on the physical 
          inspection that toilet paper was not being provided to the public 
          bathrooms throughout the building.  Because of the age of this 
          proceeding and the retroactive effective date of such rent 
          reduction, an investigation should be made as to when this service 
          was restored, if ever, and rent restoration should be ordered as of 
          that date.   The complaint regarding linen service should also be 
          explored and a determination made by means of a hearing if 
          necessary, as to the nature and extent of linen service provided on 
          the base date, whether such service is being provided now and if 
          not, to order an appropriate rent reduction effective either the 
          month following the issuance of this order if the room is rent 
          stabilized or effective prospectively from the date of issuance of 
          the administrator's order pursuant to remand if the room is rent 

          For conditions that were the subject of the individual unit 
          complaint, a remand is required for the purpose of scheduling 


          another inspection on notice to the tenant's attorney.  If the 
          conditions alleged in the complaint are confirmed by the Division's 
          inspector, a rent reduction should be ordered effective the month 
          following service of the complaint on the owner (February 24, 1988) 
          if the room is rent stabilized and prospectively from the issuance 
          of the order appealed herein (Dec. 30, 1988) if the unit is rent 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Control Law for New York 
          City, the Rent and Eviction Regulations, and the Rent Stabilization 
          Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that these petitions be and the same hereby are granted to 
          the extent of remanding these proceedings to the administrator for 
          further processing in accordance with this order and opinion.


                                                         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