ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DA 130220-RO



                                  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.:               
                                                 DA 130220-RO 
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 BG-110018-B              
            KREISEL COMPANY, INC.            
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On January 10, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner  filed
          a Petition for Administrative Review PAR) against an order issued 
          on December 8, 1988 by the Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz  Plaza,
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          215-43 48th Avenue, Bayside, New York, wherein the  Administrator
          determined the tenants' complaint of a reduction of building-wide 
          services.  An amended order was issued on November  20,  1990  to
          include a tenant omitted from the prior orders; all  other  parts
          of the order remained unchanged.

               The Administrator's order granted rent reductions  based  on
          the results  of  inspections  conducted  on  March  8,  1988  and
          September 16, 1988,  which  found  that  the  owner  had  removed
          certain washers and dryers  from  separate  laundry  rooms,  that
          metal nosings on stairways were  bent,  and  that  public  access
          sidewalks surrounding the buildings were uneven and cracked.  

               On appeal, the owner reiterates assertions below that  there
          was only one laundry room servicing these units on the base  date
          and that, therefore, there was no decease in services within  the
          meaning of the Rent Stabilization Law.  The owner also  concedes,
          as below the allocation of three laundry rooms rather than one in 
          the  early  eighties,  characterizing  them  as  temporary,   and
          insufficient to create a required service.  


               The owner also argues that the conditions pertaining to  the
          stairway nosings, could best be  described  as  de  minimis,  not
          warranting  a  rent   reduction.    Photographs   depicting   the
          stairwells are attached.  

               The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r) and  2523.4  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code.







          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DA 130220-RO
               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization  Code  describes
          required services as follows:

                    (r)  Required services
                         (1) That space and those services
                         which the owner was maintaining or
                         was required to maintain on the 
                         applicable base dates set forth 
                         below, and any additional space
                         or services provided or required
                         to be provided thereafter by
                         applicable law. (Emphasis added)

               While the owner describes the allocation  of  three  laundry
          rooms servicing the units  as  temporary,  the  owner  failed  to
          provide information as to the length of time they were  provided,
          or  to  the  circumstances  surrounding  their  installation  and
          removal.  The owner's failure to establish that the installations 
          were temporary, as alleged, despite adequate  opportunity  to  do
          so, mandates  that  the  owner's  bare  characterization  of  the
          facilities as temporary be rejected.

               The owner's further argument that since there was  only  one
          laundry room servicing  these  units,  the  allocation  of  three
          laundry facilities "at some time after the base  date,  does  not
          create  a  required  service"  must  similarly   fail.    Section
          2520.6(r),  cited  above,  specifically  provides  that  services
          initiated after the base date do become required services.

               With regard to the owner's  argument  that  rent  reductions
          predicated on the  laundry  room  and  sidewalk  conditions  were
          improper because the  conditions  were  rectified  prior  to  the
          issuance of the order, the Commissioner  notes  that  the  record
          fails to reflect any notice from the owner to  the  Administrator
          before the order  was  issued  that  services  were  restored  or
          conditions  corrected.   The   Administrator's   findings   were,
          therefore, proper based on the record presented.    


               The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator  properly
          determined that the bent stairways nosings condition warranted a 
          rent reduction.  Stairway nosings not  flush  with  the  stairway
          treads constitute a serious  tripping  hazard,  and  are  not  de
          minimis.

               The Commissioner also  notes  that  an  appeal  is  strictly
          limited to a review of the record below.  Therefore, the  owner's
          claim   of   repairs   allegedly   completed   prior    to    the
          Administrator's order and evidence submitted in support  thereof,
          may not be considered herein.  However, the owner may apply for a 
          rent restoration predicated on a restoration of service,  if  not
          already done. 

               Lastly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the   Administrator
          properly amended the initial order (dated December  3,  1988)  on
          November 21, 1990 to include a tenant not previously served  with






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. DA 130220-RO
          the order.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied  and  that  the
          Administrator's order be affirmed.

          ISSUED:









                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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