CK410069RT
                                  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.: CK410069RT

                    Susan Slocum,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: CA430070B
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 14, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on October 
          20, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 139 East 27th Street, New York, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the owner failed to 
          maintain the appropriate lobby notice identifying the 
          superintendent and how he could be reached.  The Administrator, 
          however, did not order a rent reduction.

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

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint by 
          several tenants alleging that the owner has failed to provide a 
          full time resident superintendent.  Instead, there is a part time 
          handyman who takes care of several buildings, lives more than one 
          block away, and cannot be reached in emergencies.

          The owner was served with a copy of the tenants' complaint and 
          answered that he employs a professional superintendent who lives in 
          the adjoining building, that he is available on a 24 hour basis, 
          that his name and number have been provided to the tenants, and 
          that he provides all of the required maintenance services for the 
          building.




          Thereafter, inspections conducted by a DHCR staff inspector of this 
          Division determined that the super does not live in the subject 












          CK410069RT

          building and that his name and phone number, but not address, are 
          posted on a lobby sign.

          In the order of October 20, 1988, the Administrator found that a 
          rent reduction was not warranted but directed the owner to maintain 
          a sign with the janitor's name, address and phone number 
          conspicuously displayed, in accordance with the requirements of the 
          Housing Maintenance Code.

          In the PAR, the tenant states that the order only addressed the 
          lack of a sign, that the complaint below was a lack of an on 
          premises full time super.  The tenant further stated that building 
          services have steadily declined and attached to the PAR was a list 
          of twelve service complaints which was compiled during the summer 
          of 1988.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the PAR should be denied.

          The complaint below clearly stated that the current super worked 
          only part time, lived outside the subject building, and that there 
          was no emergency number available.

          There is no requirement that the person providing janitorial 
          services live within the subject building.  A super living within 
          the legal distance of the building is permitted.  A tenant's 
          allegation of a reduction in building personnel is not in itself a 
          decrease in services unless it can be established that there has 
          been a concomitant decrease in building maintenance.  Here, the 
          tenants alleged that the super could not be reached in the event of 
          emergency and was not around on a full time basis, but otherwise 
          made no allegation of specific building conditions which required 
          correction.  The list of building complaints submitted on 
          administrative review is outside the scope of this appeal which, 
          pursuant to Section 2529.6 of the Rent Stabilization Code, is 
          limited to a review of facts or evidence that was before the 
          Administrator.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the 
          physical inspection, and that the tenant's petition does not 
          establish any basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's 
          order.





          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 






          CK410069RT

          that the Rent 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