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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: DA230053RO
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: CF230017B        
                Kostas Tsichlis,        

               On January 3, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on November 
          29, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known a 5007 Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y., various 
          apartments,  wherein the Administrator determined that the rent for 
          rent stabilized apartments should be reduced to the level in effect 
          prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before 
          the effective date of the order and by $10.00 per month for rent 
          controlled tenants based upon a diminution of services.  The Rent 
          Administrator's order was based upon an inspection held on 
          September 15, 1988, which showed that although some services were 
          being maintained others were not.

               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.

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          reduced the rents of various rent stabilized and rent controlled 
          apartments in the subject building.

               The tenants filed a building-wide service complaint on June 9, 
          1988 and on June 23, 1988, a Notice and Transmittal of the Tenants' 
          Complaint was mailed to the owner.  One of the allegations in the 
          complaint was that the building entrance door is broken.

               On July 14, 1988, the owner submitted an answer to the 
          complaint requesting an extension until September 30, 1988 to make 
          all necessary repairs because an application was being made for a 
          loan to rehabilitate the entire building.


               The DHCR held an inspection on September 15, 1988 and the 
          inspection revealed that although a number of repairs were 
          corrected or unnecessary the building entrance door was defective, 
          the left door had a loose door knob and loose glass in the door 
          frame and the right door had a loose door knob with loose and 
          broken glass in the frame.

               A follow-up inspection on October 13, 1988, showed that the 
          conditions relative to the entrance door were essentially 
          unchanged.  The inspector reported that the glass on the entrance 
          door was constituting a hazardous condition, and the lock on the 
          door was broken.

               On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleges that the building 
          entrance door cannot be locked because it would preclude access to 
          the bell system, that a contract has been entered into for the 
          installation of a new door, that a new intercom system will then be 
          installed, that application has been made for a rehabilitation 
          loan, that the cracked glass was replaced the first week of 
          December 1988, and that a locked front entrance is not an essential 

               The petition was served on the tenants on February 28, 1989.  
          Several tenants answered, stating in substance, that many other 
          conditions in the building besides the building entrance door 
          require repair.

               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 a 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 had failed to maintain required services.

               Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

               Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides, 
          that an owner's failure to maintain essential services may result 
          in an order of decrease in maximum rent, in an amount determined by 
          the discretion of the Rent Administrator.

               Essential services are defined by system 2200.3(b) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.


               Based on the inspection report, the Administrator issued the 
          rent reduction order appealed herein.  Upon the facts found herein 
          the Commission finds that the Administrator properly based the 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspections conducted on September 15, 1988 and 
          October 13, 1988, and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the 
          Code and Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations the 
          rent reduction ordered by the Administrator based upon the 
          determination that the owner had failed to maintain services.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner had five (5) months from 
          the date of service of the tenants' complaint until the issuance of 
          the Rent Administrator's order to act on the tenants' complaint and 
          to make the necessary repairs, but failed to do so.

               The owner also failed to raise the issue of whether the door 
          is required to be locked while the proceeding was before the 
          Administrator and may not raise it now for the first time on 
          appeal.  Even if the door is not required to be locked, the owner 
          concedes in the petition that the glass was not repaired until 
          after the order was issued.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          for New York City, it is,

               ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and same hereby 
          is, denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.

               Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply 
          for a rent restoration.


                                                  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