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.: DH 230340 RO
ANASTASIOS VASILAKOS DISTRICT RENT
NO.: CI 230103 B
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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A, D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner