DE 430142-RO, et al.
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   DE 430142-RO;
                                                  DE 410359-RT;  DE 430353-RT;
             ROBERT LAWRENCE c/o PALA MGMT.       DE 410358-RT;  DE 420355-RT;
             AND VARIOUS TENANTS OF 226-230       DE 410360-RT;  DE 410357-RT
             EAST   12TH   STREET,                      RENT    ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      CH 430027-B 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
            OF THE TENANT OF APARTMENT 7-B, DENYING OWNER'S PETITION FOR
                ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, AND TERMINATING OTHER TENANTS' 
                          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCEEDINGS



          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          The above named owner and various tenants filed timely  petitions
          for administrative review of an order issued on April 7, 1989  by
          a Rent Administrator concerning  various  housing  accommodations
          in the premises known as 226-230  East  12th  Street,  New  York,
          New York, wherein rents were reduced due to a diminution of 
          services.

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

          On August 5, 1988 five rent controlled  tenants  of  the  subject
          building filed an application for rent reductions  based  on  the
          owner's alleged failure to maintain service alleging  inter  alia
          water seepage due to defective windows in public  areas,  exposed
          electrical wiring in the lobby, public areas in need of painting, 
          and that the building required waterproofing and pointing.



          On September 20, 1988 the  owner  interposed  an  answer  to  the
          tenant's complaint wherein it alleged that the building  did  not
          require waterproofing and pointing, that  the  electrical  wiring
          had been rectified, that new windows would  be  installed  within
          ninety days, and the repainting of the public areas w s  in  pro-
          gress.

          On February 7, 1989 a physical inspection  f  the  subject  prem-
          ises was carried out by the Division  of  Housing  and  Community







          DE 430142-RO, et al.
          Renewal (DHCR).  The inspector, in his  report,  noted  that  the
          complained of conditions were as alleged by the tenants.

          On April 7, 1989 the Rent Administrator  issued  the  order  here
          under review finding that a diminution of services  had  occurred
          and reducing the tenants' rents to the levels in effect prior  to
          the last rent guideline  increases  which  commenced  before  the
          effective date of the rent reductions.

          On June 9, 1989 an amended order was issued  granting  an  eleven
          dollar monthly rent reduction to the tenants of  apartments  9-A,
          3-H, 9-G and 9-D after these tenants advised  the  Rent  Adminis-
          trator of their rent controlled status.  The  amended  order  did
          not affect the tenant of apartment 7-B who is also subject to 
          rent control.

          In their petitions  for  administrative  review  the  tenants  of
          apartments 7-B, 9-A, 3-H, 9-G and 9-D reque t  that  the  Commis-
          sioner specify a dollar amount in regard to the  rent  reductions
          as they are rent-controlled tenants.

          In its petition for  administrative  review  the  owner  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that  all  of
          the windows have  been  replaced,  that  the  building  does  not
          require waterproofing and pointing and that  when  water  seepage
          complaints have occurred, "we have handled it.  At this date,  we
          have no current complaints of water seepage in  any  apartments."
          The owner further states that the exposed electrical wiring cited 
          by the administrator are cable television  and  telephone  wires,
          cosmetic in nature, and that the inspection occurred prior to the 
          completion of painting and the "currently six of the eleven halls 
          have been painted and the balance will be finished  in  the  next
          three/four weeks."

          In their petition for administrative review  (DE  430353-RT)  the
          tenants of apartments 9-A, PH-A, 6A, 1-J, 2-D, 4-B, 10-A, 8-F,
          2-A, 6-G, 7-E, and 9-J request that the rent  reductions  be  ex-
          tended to Rent Stabilized tenants.


          After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the  following
          opinion:

          The petition of the tenant of apartment 7-B  should  be  granted.
          This tenant was one of the five origin l  rent-controlled  signa-
          tories of the complaint. However, the  amended  order  issued  on
          June 9, 1989 failed to include him.

          The petition of the owner should  be  denied.   The  Commissioner
          notes that the owner's petition is  devoid  of  any  evidence  to
          substantiate any of the contentions made therein  as  to  ongoing
          renovation, repairs in progress, errors of fact in regard to  the
          exposed wiring, pointing, etc...

          Moreover, the owner had seven months from the date of service  of
          the tenants' complaint until the issuance of the  administrator's
          order to investigate the  tenants'  complaint  and  to  make  the
          necessary repairs, but failed to do so.







          DE 430142-RO, et al.

          The  Commissioner  notes  that  while  the  owner  questions  the
          findings of fact the record clearly reflects  those  findings  by
          virtue of DHCR inspection which occurred on February 7, 1989.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the  Rent  Administrator
          properly determined that the owner had fail d  to  maintain  ser-
          vices based on the evidence of record, including the results of a 
          physical inspection of the subject premises and correctly  deter-
          mined that a diminution of services had occurred.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          rights as they may pertain to an application to the Division  for
          a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.

          In regard to the individual petitions of t e  tenants  of  apart-
          ments 9-A, 3-H, 9-G and  9-D  (DE  420355-RT,  DE  410359-RT,  DE
          410358-RT, and DE 410360-RT) the Commissioner  notes  that  these
          petitions were filed prior to the issuance of the  June  9,  1989
          amended order and that by the issuance of that  order  they  have
          been rendered moot.  Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that
          these proceedings should be terminated.   (The  relief  requested
          has already been granted.)

          In regard to the joint petition for administrative review of  the
          various tenants (DE 430353-RT) the Commissioner notes  that  none
          of these tenants were signatories of the original  complaint  nor
          did they participate in the proceeding under review.  Accordingly 



          the Commissioner finds that they do not have  standing  and  that
          this proceeding should be terminated.

          In conclusion the parties are advised:

               1)   Rent  reductions  of  11  dollars  monthly  are
                    applicable to the  apartments  9-A,  3-H,  9-G,
                    9-D and 7-B effective May 1, 1989.

               2)   No rent stabilized apartments were granted 
                    reductions.


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

          ORDERED, that petition DE 410357-RT be, and the same  hereby  is,
          granted to the extent of granting an eleven dollar  monthly  rent
          reduction for apartment 7-B effective May 1, 1989, and it is 
          further

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition DE 430142-RO be, and the  same
          hereby is, denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is,  affirmed  as  modified  herein,  and  it  is
          further








          DE 430142-RO, et al.
          ORDERED, that administrative review proceedings DE 430353-RT,  DE
          420355-RT, DE 410359-RT, DE 4103538-RT, and DE 410360-RT be,  and
          the same hereby are, terminated.


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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