CF610211RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CF610211RO

               College Management Co. Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BH610547S
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On June 30, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 16, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 1020 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York, 
          Apt. 21-X, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in 
          rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues set forth by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment based upon a reduction in 
          services.

          On August 27, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain services throughout the premises.  More 
          specifically, the tenant alleged that the owner failed to maintain 
          air-conditioning service; that the public hallways, stairways, and 
          carpets were dirty and that the hallways were in need of painting.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint on November 4, 1987, 
          alleging that the air-conditioning was repaired on July 16, 1987 
          and that the premises is cleaned and painted intermittently in 
          compliance with the law.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on April 25, 1988, revealed that the 
          central air-conditioning system in the subject apartment was 












          CF610211RO

          defective.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the air-conditioning system was repaired on July 16, 1987; that the 
          Rent Administrator denied three other tenants' air-conditioner 
          complaints and that in those instances where the rent was reduced, 
          the Rent Administrator incorrectly reduced the rents to November 1, 
          1987, a month where air-conditioner services are not required.

          The petition was served on the tenant on August 31, 1988.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (DHCR) for reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in 
          effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR 
          shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that 
          the owner has failed to maintain required services.

          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

          The petitioner's claim that air-conditioner services were corrected 
          on July 16, 1987, prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's 
          order, on June 16, 1988, is without foundation.

          The inspector's findings of April 25, 1988, belie this claim and 
          show conclusively that the owner failed to maintain these services.

          The Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim that the Rent Administrator denied three other tenants a 
          reduction in rent based upon a diminution in air-conditioning 
          services.

          The file under Docket No. BG610887S, reveals that air-conditioning 
          services were not the subject of the DHCR inspection and that the 
          application was denied because the owner corrected deficient 
          intercom services.

          The file under Docket No. BG610801S reveals that the tenant 
          withdrew the air-conditioning complaint in that proceeding and that 
          the owner corrected all other service deficiencies.



          Furthermore, an inspection, held on December 2, 1987, under Docket 
          No. BG610494S, showed that the air-conditioning problem has been 
          corrected.







          CF610211RO

          Additionally, there is no apparent basis for petitioner's claim 
          that the retroactive effective date of the rent reduction to 
          November 1, 1987, is improper.

          The record demonstrates that the tenant's complaint was served on 
          the owner on October 27, 1987 and, therefore, the effective date of 
          the rent reduction was properly established as the first of the 
          month following the date of service or November 1, 1987.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          order and opinion.         

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
                   


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             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