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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CJ130279RT

                    Various Tenants of
                    63-74 Austin Street,
                    Rego Park, New York,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BJ110015B


          On October 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          September 30, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 63-74 Austin Street, Rego Park, 
          N.Y., various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that 
          a reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in 

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

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

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartments.

          On October 14, 1987, the tenants filed a building-wide complaint 
          alleging that the owner failed to maintain services.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that all 
          violations have been corrected and that all service deficiencies 
          specified in the complaint have been corrected.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on August 29, 1988, revealed the 
          following service deficiencies:


          1.   The windows in the public area, cranks and locks are 
          2.   There is one unsecured window in the garage area.
          3.   The linoleum floor tiles and baseboards are cracked and broken 
               throughout public areas.
          4.   The public area bulkhead has peeling paint and plaster.
          5.   The playground wall is covered with graffiti.
          6.   There are cracked mortar joints in the exterior bricks.
          7.   There is evidence that the playground benches, see-saws and 
               the rest of the equipment was removed.
          8.   The front entrance steps was constructed in an unworkmanlike 
          9.   The incinerator  chute located on the first floor is loose, 
               and is not self closing.

          The same inspection revealed that the following services were 

          1.   There is no evidence of broken windows, sashes, sills or 
               frames in the public areas.
          2.   The vestibule lock is operative.
          3.   The main entrance door and lock is operative.
          4.   The public hall windows have bars and they are operative.
          5.   There is no evidence of a gap between the baseboard and the 
               floor in the public area.
          6.   There is no evidence of vermin infestation in the public area.
          7.   There is no evidence of rusted fire escapes.
          8.   There is no evidence of the premises directory not being 
          9.   The public areas were cleaned.
          10.  There is no evidence of defective sidewalks.
          11.  There is no evidence of a missing hand railing from the public 
          12.  The roof door is self-closing.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenants asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          all repairs were not corrected and that those that were corrected 
          were done in an unworkmanlike manner.  The petitioners also 
          requested that a reinspection be conducted by the DHCR.

          The petition was served on the owner on December 6, 1988, and on 
          December 20, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition 
          stating that if, in fact, the DHCR inspector overlooked any service 
          deficiencies, then it will correct those deficiencies.

          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 Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim on appeal that the owner failed to correct additional service 
          deficiencies not specified in the Rent Administrator's rent 
          reduction order of September 30, 1988.

          The file is devoid of any evidence showing that the owner failed to 
          restore more services than are delineated in the appealed order.

          The appealed order clearly granted the Rent Stabilized tenants a 
          rent reduction and clearly specified the nine (9) existing service 
          deficiencies and the twelve (12) services that were restored by the 

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenants have offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 
          determination or to establish a basis for the Commissioner to order 
          a reinspection of the premises.

          The Commissioner finds, that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspection conducted on August 29, 1988, pursuant 
          to Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          that the Rent Administrator properly determined that a rent 
          reduction was warranted.

          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 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 

                                             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