CH130036RO
                                  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 NO.: CH130036RO
                                                  
          JAIRAJ ASSOCIATES                       RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BH110175B
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On August 8, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued on April 13, 1988. The order 
          concerned the housing accommodations located at 88-05 Merrick 
          Blvd., Jamaica, N.Y  The Administrator directed restoration of 
          services and ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain 
          required services.  

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

               This proceeding was commenced on August 28, 1987 when 27 
          tenants of this 91 unit building joined in filing a Statement of 
          Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they 
          alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain 
          required building-wide services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on November 
          12, 1987 and stated, in sum, that it was maintaining required 
          services or that it had investigated the tenants' complaints and 
          made the required repairs.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on January 26, 1988.  The 
          building was reinspected on March 1, 1988.  The inspections 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Inoperative vestibule door lock,

                    2.   South roof door loose on hinges,













          CH130036RO


                    3.   Public area floors and walls are dirty,

                    4.   Furniture and debris stored in laundry area 
                         creating a fire hazard,

                    5.   Inadequate rear door lock; fire escape obstruction,

                    6.   Defective roof resulting in leaks.

               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on
          April 13, 1988 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to 
          the percentage of the most recent guidelines adjustment for leases 
          commencing prior to December 1, 1987 based on the inspector's 
          reports.

               On appeal the owner states that it was denied due process by 
          the Administrator's failure to give notice of the inspections or a 
          copy of the inspector's reports.  The owner also argues that the 
          conditions cited in the order being appealed are too minor to 
          warrant a rent reduction and that only the affected tenants should 
          be entitled to such relief.  The petition was served on the tenants 
          on December 5, 1988. 

               Two tenants, one of whom claiming to be representing all other 
          tenants, filed responses to the petition and stated, in sum, that 
          the petition should be denied and the order being appealed should 
          be affirmed.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, 
          tenants may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction based on failure 
          to maintain required services and the Administrator shall reduce 
          the rent upon finding that such services have not been maintained.  
          The Code defines required services to be those services the owner 
          was required to maintain on the applicable base date including 
          repairs and maintenance.

               With regard to the owner's argument that it was entitled to 
          notice of the above described inspections as well as a copy of the 
          inspector's reports, the Commissioner has consistently held that 
          the filing of the complaint puts the owner on notice of the 
          existence of the conditions and the need to investigate and make 
          repairs.  The Courts have upheld this policy (see Empress Manor 
          Apts. v. DHCR 538 N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd Dept., 1989]).  Furthermore, the 
          owner's response to the complaint stated that the owner had been 
          notified and had made the requisite investigation and repairs.  


               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this 






          CH130036RO

          determination on the entire record including the results of the on 
          site physical inspections described above.  The owner has not 
          rebutted the inspector's reports and the owner's statement that the 
          cited conditions are too trivial to warrant a rent reduction is 
          without merit in view of the Court's ruling in Tenants of Hyde Park 
          Gardens v. DHCR 140 A.D.2d 351, 527 N.Y.S.2d 841 (2nd Dept., 1988), 
          affirmed 73 N.Y.2d 988, 541 N.Y.S.2d 345 (1989).  The Commissioner 
          also rejects the defense that only affected tenants should be 
          entitled to a rent reduction.  In a building-wide proceeding, all 
          tenants who join in filing the complaint are deemed to be affected 
          by a decrease in building-wide services with few exceptions not 
          relevant here.  The order being appealed is affirmed.

                 The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement which 
          resulted from the filing of this petition for administrative review 
          is vacated upon issuance of this order and opinion.  The 
          Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application 
          (Docket No. CD110182OR) was granted on February 16, 1989 with an 
          effective date of September 1, 1988.

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

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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