DE630209RO
                                    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.: DE630209RO 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: CH630120B       
               Interboro Holding Co.                                      
                  et.al. Blaser                 
                                 
                                 PETITIONER  
          ----------------------------------x                      
                                                                       

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW     
                          
               
               On May 11, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          April 26, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 2420 Morris Avenue, Various apartments, 
          Bronx, N.Y. wherein the Administrator determined that there had 
          been a decrease in services building wide and reduced the rent 
          accordingly effective November 1, 1988.

               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 of 
          decrease in services on August 30, 1988.  An inspection conducted 
          by a Division employee on March 14, 1989 confirmed the existence of 
          some of the complained of conditions resulting in the 
          Administrator's order hereunder review.

               In the PAR, the owner claims that the conditions for which the 
          rent was reduced are not the services which the tenants complained 
          of; that the failure to notify the owner of the reduced service 
          prior to the reduction of the rent is a deprivation of due process; 
          that the rent reduction is not consistent with Policy Statement 89- 
          1 which, the owner contends, holds that a rent reduction will not 
          be ordered where the alleged failure to maintain services involves 
          a minor condition that occurs normally despite ongoing maintenance 
          or recurs from time to time and is addressed through periodic 
          maintenance; that the agency has held that routine maintenance 
          problems do not warrant a rent reduction; and, that all services 
          were restored before the order was issued.  The owner further 












          DE630209RO



          states in his PAR that the basement hallway was cleaned "that 
          afternoon" and auto parts were placed there by a tenant and were 
          disposed of the "next day"; that the empty tanks were hot water 
          tanks installed to provide heat and hot water while the main boiler 
          was being repaired and that the tanks remained on the premises 
          until the boiler company completed the necessary repairs; and that 
          the conditions found by the inspector were neither essential nor a 
          substantial deterioration of the housing accommodation.

               The owner's PAR was served on the tenants on September 5, 
          1989.  Various tenants responded claiming that the building is not 
          well maintained, that the halls are not swept, mopped, or waxed 
          daily as claimed.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 
          denied.

               The Commissioner notes that the tenants' complaint of a 
          decrease in building wide services included a complaint regarding 
          the "regular maintenance of the building", specifically, that the 
          superintendent has failed to regularly clean the hallways, 
          incinerator and garbage areas.  In response to this complaint the 
          owner stated, among other things, that waxing, sweeping, and 
          mopping were done on a daily basis by the resident superintendent.  
          The inspection conducted by a Division employee on March 14, 1989 
          revealed that the basement was filthy with dog droppings and that 
          the courtyard was also filthy and contained auto parts and 2 large 
          empty tanks.  The Commissioner rejects the owner's contention that 
          the conditions for which the rent was reduced were matters which 
          were not complained of, were minor, or were matters of routine 
          maintenance.  The condition complained of and the finding both fall 
          within the scope of inadequate janitorial services building wide.

               The owner's reference to Policy Statement 89-1 is inapposite.
          That policy statement was revised and replaced by Policy Statement 
          90-2 issued February 21, 1990.  In the revised policy statement all 
          references to minor conditions occurring normally despite on-going 
          maintenance, or re-occurring despite periodic maintenance, have 
          been deleted.  The policy was revised to reflect the holding in the 
          case of In the Matter of Hyde Park Gardens v. DHCR, 140 AD2 351, 
          527 NYS 2d 841 (2d Dept. 1988), affirmed 73 NY 2d 998, 541 NYS 2d 
          345 (1989) which held, among other things, that when an agency 
          inspection reveals diminutions in services, a rent reduction is 
          warranted and the Commissioner will not look into the extent of 
          such service diminutions.  

               


               The owner incorrectly asserts that the decrease in services 






          DE630209RO

          must involve essential services or amount to a substantial 
          deterioration of the housing accommodation.  Section 2523.4 of the 
          Rent Stabilization Code, which is applicable in this case, provides 
          for a rent reduction where it is found that the owner has failed to 
          maintain required services.  Required services as defined in Sec. 
          2520.6(r) include janitorial services and removal of refuse.

               As for the due process considerations raised by the owner, the 
          record reflects that the owner was served with a copy of the 
          tenants' complaint in the proceeding below and filed a response 
          thereto on October 27, 1988.  Further, there is sufficient 
          connection between the services complained of and the 
          Administrator's findings to conclude that the owner had sufficient 
          notice of the condition.  The owner's assertion that the services 
          were restored before the order was issued does not warrant 
          modification or revocation of the order.  A review of the record 
          clearly shows that the owner did not submit any evidence to the 
          Administrator that the conditions noted in the order had been 
          corrected prior to its issuance.  In addition, the PAR while 
          claiming the services were restored the "same day" or the "next 
          day" does not indicate just what day that was.

               Accordingly the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the results of the on site inspection and that the rent reduction 
          ordered by the Administrator based on a determination that the 
          owner had failed to maintain services, was warranted.
               
               The Commissioner notes that the Division's records reveal that 
          the owner's rent restoration application (Docket Number DE630139OR) 
          was granted on January 4, 1990.
               
               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is,

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