STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: DI430034RO
          MURRAY MANSIONS/                                     DI430064RT
          241 W. 13TH STREET OWNER'S CORP.
          VARIOUS TENANTS OF                                         ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET   
          241 W. 13TH STREET                      NO.: CK430143OR

               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated as all contain common issues of law and fact.

               On September 12, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued August 21, 1989. Petitions for administrative 
          review were also filed by an individual tenant and an authorized 
          tenant representative. The order here under review concerned 
          various housing accommodations located at 241 W. 13th Street, New 
          York, N.Y.  The Administrator granted the owner's application for 
          rent restoration in part for rent controlled tenants and denied the 
          application with regard to rent stabilized tenants.   

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on January 4, 1989 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it 
          had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. BL430073B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the rents were ordered reduced based on findings of vermin 
          infestation and broken windows in the public area as well as an 
          inoperative washing machine.  The rent reduction order also noted 
          that the owner failed to display a sign containing the name, 
          address and phone number of the superintendent or janitor.

               The tenants were served with a copy of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses 
          and stated, in sum, that the owner had not restored services and 


          that the application should be denied.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on May 15, 1989 and 
          revealed that the public area window sashes and frames throughout 
          the subject building were rotted and allowed air seepage.  All 
          other services were found to have been maintained.

               On May 24, 1989 the Administrator sent the owner a notice 
          regarding the conditions existing with regard to the public area 
          windows.  The owner was afforded an opportunity to make repairs and 
          present proof thereof to the Administrator.  The owner failed to 
          respond to this notice.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on August 
          21, 1989.  Rent restoration of $9.00 per month was ordered for rent 
          controlled tenants with the owner given leave to refile for the 
          remaining $3.00 when the public area windows were repaired.  The 
          application was denied with regard to rent stabilized tenants.

               The owner states on appeal that the public area windows cannot 
          be replaced due to the fact that the New York City Landmarks 
          Preservation Commissioner must give permission before any window 
          replacement can be done and such permission has not been given. The 
          petition was served on the tenants on January 9, 1990

               Various tenants filed response wherein they stated, in sum, 
          that the Landmarks Preservation Commission did not have to give 
          permission to replace the windows, that the owner's argument was 
          without merit and that the petition should be denied.

               Two petitions were filed by tenants.  In Docket No. 
          DI430064RT, an authorized tenant representative states, in sum, 
          that the owner has not corrected the conditions regarding the 
          vermin infestation, washing machine nor posted an appropriate sign.  
          The tenants submit photographs in support of the petition.  The 
          petition was served on the owner on December 26, 1989.

               The owner, as represented by counsel, filed an answer on 
          January 14, 1990 and stated that the tenants' petition was 
          defective because the incorrect owner was named and that it had 
          restored the services for which rent restoration was granted.

               In Docket No. DJ410218RT one individual tenant states that 
          there are broken and cracked windows in the public areas, that the 
          washing machine damages clothes, that the washing machine room is 
          dirty and that the sign posted regarding the whereabouts of the 
          superintendent does not list his address nor the fact that he does 
          not live within 200 feet of the building.  The petition was served 
          on the owner on January 8, 1990.
               The owner again filed a response through counsel and again 
          stated that the petition was without merit and should be denied.


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

               With regard to the owner's appeal the Commissioner notes that 
          the owner's defense was not raised at any time prior to the filing 
          of the petition nor did the owner respond to the May 24, 1989 
          notice sent by the Administrator.  Furthermore, the Administrator's 
          order did not specifically call for replacement of the windows, but 
          merely repair of the rotted frames and the prevention of air 
          seepage.  The owner's argument on appeal is without merit.  The 
          petition is denied.

               The petitions filed by the tenants are also denied.  The 
          Commissioner deems it appropriate to rely on the report of the DHCR 
          inspector who is an impartial observer rather than on the 
          unsupported allegations of a party to the proceeding.  The report 
          contradicts the evidence submitted by the tenant representative and 
          the petition filed by the individual tenant is completely 
          unsupported by any evidence.  The order here under review is 

               The Commissioner notes that the owner's reapplication for rent 
          restoration (Docket No. GF430012OR) has been granted by the 

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

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


                                             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