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

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: CI630127RT
          SOPHIE KESSLER, TENANT REP.             RENT
          SOL SISKIND                             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: CB610147OR

               The above named petitioner-tenant representative and 
          petitioner-tenant filed Petitions for Administrative Review against 
          orders of the Rent Administrator issued on September 8, 1988. The 
          orders concerned various housing accommodations located at 2215 
          Cruger Ave., 2235 Cruger Ave., 2255 Cruger Ave., and 2275 Cruger 
          Ave., Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator granted the owner's rent 
          restoration applications.  

               The Commissioner deems it appropriate to consolidate these 
          appeals for determination as they involve common issues of law and 
          fact and were filed against the same underlying owner.

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding by filing rent restoration 
          applications and alleged, in sum, that it had restored all services 
          for which the rents were ordered reduced in Docket Nos. 73941B, 
          77694B and 80170B.  The following conditions/services were cited in 
          the rent reduction orders:

          2215 Cruger Avenue--elevator does not level properly with basement 
          landing; roof and fifth floor compactor lights in need of repair; 
          elevator and laundry room lights in need of repair; and peeling 
          paint and plaster in Apts. 4B, 6A, 6B and third, fourth and fifth 
          floor hallways.

          2235 Cruger Avenue--peeling paint and plaster in Apts. 1A, 5G and 
          6C; various mailboxes bent; elevator indicators inoperative at 
          basement and second floor levels; elevator door knob missing; and 
          water in the basement.


          2255 Cruger Avenue--Peeling paint and plaster in Apts. 1B, 6A and 
          6B; and second, fourth and sixth floor hallways, peeling paint and 

          2275 Cruger Avenue--rear and middle courtyard, side entrance, 
          incinerator rooms and basement rooms in need of cleaning, basement 
          door in need of repair, holes in laundry room, vermin, and peeling 
          paint and plaster in Apts. 1G, 5A, 6A, 6B and 6C.

               The tenants were served with copies of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses 
          on April 14, 1988 and stated, in sum, that the owner had not 
          restored services and that the applications should be denied.
               The Administrator ordered physical inspections of the subject 
          building.  The inspections were conducted on June 13, 14 and 16, 
          1988 and revealed that substantially all services of a building- 
          wide nature and many of the individual apartment conditions had 
          been restored. 

               The Administrator issued the orders being appealed on 
          September 8, 1988 and granted the applications.  The rents were 
          ordered restored effective April 1, 1988 and the owner was directed 
          to repair the peeling paint and plaster conditions in apartments 1A 
          and 5G at 2215 Cruger Avenue, Apts 1G, 5A, 6A, 6B and 6C at 2275 
          Cruger Avenue and the fourth floor hallway ceiling at 2255 Cruger 

               An authorized tenant representative and one individual tenant 
          filed appeals from the orders being appealed. 

               The tenant representative states that the following services 
          were not restored by the owner: hallways not painted, primed and 
          plastered; backyard fence not secured; asbestos not removed from 
          basement, laundry rooms and garage, courtyards not repaired; 
          landscaping not done and hallway floors not stripped and buffed.  
          The petition was served on the owner on November 7, 1988.  The 
          owner filed a response on November 21, 1988 and stated that the 
          conditions cited in the tenant representative's petition were not 
          set forth in the rent reduction orders and that the owner was not 
          required to restore any of those services.  

               The individual tenant's petition states, in relevant part, 
          that the Administrator erred in issuing the orders being appealed 
          because the owner did not restore the required services, 
          specifically the building shrubbery.  The petition was served on 
          the owner on  December 7, 1988.  The owner filed a response on 
          December 27, 1988 and stated that the rent reduction order never 
          required it to restore shrubbery.

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


               Both petitioners have set forth conditions they claim the 
          owner was required to restore.  The Commissioner's review of the 
          record reveals, with the exception of painting and plastering 
          certain of the public hallways, that the owner was not required to 
          restore the services cited by the petitioners in their appeals.  
          The owner is correct in stating that the Administrator correctly 
          issued the orders here under review based on the above described 
          reports of the DHCR inspectors.  Such inspections revealed that the 
          owner had painted and plastered the public hallways where 
          necessary.  Only one small area on the fourth floor hallway ceiling 
          at 2255 Cruger Avenue was found to still require repair and the 
          owner was directed to make the necessary repairs.  The Commissioner 
          is of the opinion and finds that the Administrator did not exceed 
          the scope of his discretion and authority in finding that the owner 
          had restored services under the particular facts and circumstances 
          of the instant proceeding.  
               This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the 
          rights of the tenants to file service reduction complaints with the 
          Division, if the facts so warrant, wherein they may cite the 
          conditions specified in their appeals or any other conditions then 
          currently in need of repair.  The tenants also have the right to 
          file non-compliance complaints with the Division if the owner does 
          not comply with the directives set forth in the Administrator's 
          orders appealed herein.

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

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same 
          hereby are, affirmed.


                                             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