DH 230340-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.: DH 230340 RO

     ANASTASIOS VASILAKOS               DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CI 230103  B
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On August 21, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition  for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued July 13, 1989.  The order concerned  housing
accommodations  located  at  2013  69th  Street,  Brooklyn,  N.Y.
wherein  the Administrator ordered a building-wide rent reduction
for failure to maintain required or essential services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The  tenant  of Apartment B1 commenced this  proceeding  by
filing  a  Statement  of Complaint of Decrease  in  Building-Wide
Services on May 1, 1988 wherein the following services deficiency
was  alleged:  lobby  and  entrance  doors  locked  so  that   no
deliveries  or emergency services can enter; tenant  states  that
bells or an intercom are needed on the outside of the building.
The  complaint  was  served on the owner and  an  opportunity  to
respond was afforded.

      The owner filed a response on November 13, 1988 wherein  he
stated  that  ninety  percent  of the  tenants  of  the  building
requested that the front doors be kept locked for better building
security.   The  owner  maintained  that  no  services   decrease
existed.

     The Administrator determined that an inspection would not be
required at that time, but instead sent the owner a notice, dated
March 28, 1989, wherein the owner was directed to open one of the
front  entrance  doors  to the building so  that  access  to  the
intercom  system and/or bell and buzzers could be obtained.   The
owner  filed a response, dated April 4, 1989, wherein  he  stated
that the building bell and buzzer system had been made accessible
and  that the door leading to the vestibule containing the  bells
and buzzes had been unlocked.

      The  Administrator ordered a random inspection to determine
if  the owner had, in fact, complied with the direction to unlock
the  door.   The  inspection took place  on  May  5,  1989.   The
inspector reported that the building entrance door was locked and
that access to the bell and buzzer system was poor.

      On  July  13, 1989 the Administrator issued the order  here
under  review  and ordered a $3.00 rent reduction for  the  three
rent  controlled tenants residing in the building, by  reason  of
the inspector's report.

     On appeal, the owner again advances the argument that eighty
percent of the tenants desire that the outer door be kept  locked
for  purposes of security.  Annexed to the petition is a copy  of
an  undated statement purportedly signed by 12 of the 15  tenants
in the building who want the door locked.

      After  careful consideration of the evidence in the record,
the  Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition  should  be
denied.

      The  petitioner's statements do not allege either legal  or
factual  error by the Administrator.  It is not a claim of  error
to  allege  that other tenants desire a result at  variance  from
that mandated by the rent regulation statutes and ordered by  the
Administrator.  Absent a cognizable statement of error below, the
Commissioner  has no basis on which to overturn  the  order  here
under review.  That order is, accordingly, affirmed.

      The  Commissioner notes that, pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2522.4(d)
or  (e), for rent stabilized tenants and 9 NYCRR 2202.21 for rent
controlled  tenants,  the  owner  may  apply  for  permission  to
decrease or modify services with an appropriate rent reduction.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City it is

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same
hereby is, 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