DA110221RT, et al.
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433

          APPEALS OF                                   DOCKET NOS.:
               Richard Albert, Owner
               Rosemary Chiesa, Tenant
               Elizabeth Blanda, Tenant

                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On various dates, the above-named petitioner-owner and tenants 
          filed petitions for administrative review of an order issued on 
          January 19, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as various apartments at 93-41, 93-45 and 93- 
          49 222nd Street, Queens Village, N.Y. wherein the Administrator 
          determined that the owner was not maintaining required or essential 
          services, directed restoration of such services, and ordered a rent 
          reduction for rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments.

          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 below when 21 separate complaints 
          alleging a failure to maintain various building-wide services were 
          consolidated into one proceeding.

          In answer to the complaints, the owner stated in substance that all 
          required services are being maintained.

          A physical inspection of the premises on November 14, 1988 revealed 
          that the public areas were in need of sweeping and washing, the 

          DA110221RT, et al.

          baseboard trim and corners beneath radiators needed cleaning, the 
          light fixtures were dirty, the walkway adjacent to the rampwell 
          (northeast courtyard) showed signs of sinking, and the inside of 
          the vestibule door was chipped and scratched.  Other items 
          contained in the complaints were found to have been corrected.

          Based on the inspector's report, the Administrator issued orders 
          reducing the rent for rent stabilized tenants by a guideline and 
          for rent controlled tenants by $10.00 per month.

          The two tenants who filed petitions for administrative review 
          assert that the orders should be modified to reflect the rent 
          controlled status of their apartments and to order a specific 
          dollar amount rent reduction.

          The owner's petition appeals the order issued for Apt. 452K only 
          and asserts that the tenant of this apartment has indicated in 
          writing that a complaint was never made.  The owner also asserts 
          that it was determined in an earlier proceeding that no rent 
          reduction was warranted for the maintenance of public areas, that 
          no complaint was filed mentioning the vestibule door, and that it 
          was also found in another proceeding that all sidewalks were being 
          maintained.  The fact that many items were found by the inspector 
          to have been repaired established that the major maintenance items 
          are being taken care of and the conditions found are, according to 
          the owner, only minor items that do not warrant a rent reduction.  
          Finally, the owner argues that a hearing should have been conducted 
          and that the complaints were prepared by a tenant representative in 
          violation of a court stipulation.

          The tenants' petitions were served on the owner and the owner's 
          petition was served on the tenant.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that both the owner's and the 
          tenants' petitions should be granted.

          The Division's records are inconclusive as to the status of the 
          petitioner-tenants' apartments.  If the apartments are rent- 
          controlled, the tenants are entitled to a $10.00 per month rent 
          reduction, effective on the first rent payment day following 
          January 19, 1989, the issuance date of the Rent Administrator's 

          If the status of the tenants' apartments is unknown or in dispute, 
          the tenants should commence an appropriate proceeding with the 
          Division for a determination as to whether the apartments are 
          subject to rent control or rent stabilization.
          With regard to the owner's petition, the Division's records reveal 
          that the subject apartment (452K) is rent stabilized.  Also, a 
          review of the various complaints that initiated this proceeding 
          reveals that the tenant of Apt. 452K did not sign any one of the 

          DA110221RT, et al.

          complaints.  By not requesting a rent reduction, the subject rent 
          stabilized tenant is not entitled to a rent reduction and the order 
          as to that tenant is revoked.

          Since the owner did not appeal the order as to other tenants, it is 
          affirmed in all other respects.  It is noted, however, that one of 
          the complaints specifically mentioned that the inner vestibule door 
          and portal is chipped and scratched and this condition was 
          confirmed by the inspector.

          The other items regarding janitorial service and the condition of 
          one walkway were also confirmed by the inspector.  It is irrelevant 
          that these same matters were determined to be adequately maintained 
          in an earlier proceeding.  The owner has an ongoing duty to provide 
          required services and if such services deteriorate at any time, a 
          rent reduction may be warranted even if an earlier determination 
          found such services to be adequate.

          The taking of oral testimony at a hearing to resolve factfinding 
          issues is not required by law but is within the discretion of the 
          Administrator and in the opinion of the Commissioner, the 
          Administrator properly declined to schedule a hearing in this case.  

          Finally, the owner has not established that the filing of the 
          instant complaints was done by a tenant representative in violation 
          of a court stipulation.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Evictions for New york City, it is

          ORDERED, that the tenants' petitions be and the same hereby are 
          granted and the Rent Administrator's orders be and the same hereby 
          are modified to order a $10.00 per month rent reduction, effective 
          the first rent payment day following January 19, 1989 if the 
          subject apartments are rent controlled, and it is further

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and the same hereby is 
          granted solely to the extent of revoking the Administrator's rent 
          reduction order as to Apartment 452K, but is affirmed in all other 

                                             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