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.: CF430016RT
CLEO REDD RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 17, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued June 10, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as various apartments, 77 West 104 Street,
New York, New York, wherein the Administrator granted in part the
owner's rent restoration application.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
A review of the record reveals that on June 25, 1987, the owner
filed an application to restore the rents that had been reduced for
all rent controlled tenants in the building in an order issued on
January 11, 1974 in Docket No. 2T613454-478. The rents had been
reduced based on a finding of failure to provide several essential
services. The owner stated in the restoration application that
these services had been restored.
A physical inspection by DHCR on August 18, 1987 revealed that the
mail boxes were secured and locked, a new roof had been installed
and pointing and waterproofing had been completed, and a new
laundry room had been built in the basement. A partial rent
restoration was granted and the owner was advised to refile for the
remaining restoration after painting the hallways and stairways of
each floor; repairing the elevator, the hole in the wall, and the
exposed wires; and providing a fire hose in the lobby.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that
the order is in error because the roofing and pointing are
ineffective and the leaks and water seepage continue, and that the
laundry room has not been operative or open for the past 4 years.
The petition was served on the owner on August 10, 1988. In
response, the owner stated that the roof, pointing and
waterproofing were done as confirmed by the DHCR inspection and
that according to DHCR "The laundry facility was built long after
these tenants were in residence. In effect it is a bonus for all
the tenants who were already in residence, and therefore cannot be
cited as a reason for decreasing rent."
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Rent Administrator properly relied on the results of the
physical inspection which revealed that there was no evidence of
defective roof or exterior pointing or waterproofing, and that
there were three washing machines and two dryers provided and
working. Based on this inspection, the Administrator properly
ordered a partial rent restoration. The tenant's petition does not
establish any basis for modifying or revoking that determination.
The owner did not file a petition for administrative review of this
order and did not identify the source of the language quoted in the
answer to the tenant's petition to the effect that laundry
facilities are not required to be provided. A search of the
Division's records did not reveal any determination that a laundry
facility is not a base date service for this building. This order
and opinion merely affirms the determination that laundry
facilities are provided and are operational.
Therefore in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA