STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DG430258RO
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CJ430028B
PETITIONER PREMISES: 301 East 38th St.
New York, New York
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on June 28, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on October 7, 1988 by the tenant
filing a complaint of decrease in building-wide services in which
the tenant asserts that the owner failed to maintain various
services in the building.
In an answer filed on November 21, 1988, the owner denied any
decrease in services and stated that to the contrary, he "increased
the level of services", inviting DHCR to inspect all the
In response to DHCR's "Request for Additional Information", the
owner asserted that all repairs would be completed on or before
January 6, 1990, the date work permits expire.
On April 13, 1989, a physical inspection of the building was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
these defective conditions: the intercom is under renovation; the
lobby and entrance doors have unnecessary and extensive amount of
dust, dirt and debris; that the building is extremely dirty and has
construction material deposited in public areas making egress and
ingress difficult; and that the owner has not conducted renovation
in a safe manner.
By order dated June 28, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and reduced the rent of rent controlled
apartments in the total amount of $14.00 (i.e. $4.00 for defective
intercom and $10.OO for unworkmanlike and unsafe renovation).
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that the work was completed prior to the issuance of the
Four tenants interposed answers to the petition, denying the owner's
allegations and stating that the work was not performed efficiently
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The Administrator's determination was properly based on the evidence
of record, including the results of the physical inspection which
revealed the existence of defective conditions in the building. The
determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.
The contention that the work was completed prior to the issuance of
the order appealed from was unsubstantiated in the proceeding below.
The owner's rent restoration application (DG430166OR) was granted on
February 9, 1990.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA