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   S.J.R. NO. 5823
         IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
         APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS. DK 610312-RO
                                                             ED 610246-RO
              BEDFORD PARK PROPERTIES,       :               FA 630271-RO
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER    :   DOCKET NOS. DH 610001HW
         ------------------------------------X               DJ 630092HW
                                                             EG 630029OR

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


         On November 22, 1989, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
         administrative review (Docket No. DK 610312RO) of an order issued on 
         October 24, 1989 (Docket No. DH 610001HW) concerning the housing 
         accommodations known as Apartment 5C, 2960 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, New 
         York, wherein rent was reduced due to a diminution of service.

         On April 19, 1990, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
         administrative review (Docket No. ED 610246-RO) of an order issued on 
         March 16, 1990 (Docket No. DJ 630092HW) concerning various 
         accommodations in the premises known as 2960 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, 
         New York, wherein rent was reduced due to a diminution of service.

         On January 18, 1991, the above-named owner filed a petition for 
         administrative review (Docket No. FA 630271RO) of an order issued on 
         December 19, 1990 (Docket No. EG630029OR) concerning various 
         accommodations in the premises known as 2960 Decatur Avenue, Bronx, 
         New York, wherein the Administrator denied the application of the 
         owner to restore the rent based on a restoration of services.

         Subsequently, and after more than 90 days had elapsed from the time it 
         filed its petitions for administrative review, the owner deemed its 
         petitions as having been denied, and sought judicial review in the 
         Supreme Court of the State of New York pursuant to Article 78 of the 
         Civil Practice Law and Rules.

         After considering the Article-78 petition, the Court issued an order 
         remitting the proceeding to the New York State Division of Housing and 
         Community Renewal (DHCR) for further consideration.


















         DOC. NOS.: DK 610312-RO, et al.


         These petitions for administrative review contain common issues of law 
         and fact.  Therefore, the Commissioner is consolidating these 
         petitions and this order and opinion is dispositive of all.

         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 the petitions for review.

         On August 2, 1989, the tenant occupying Apartment 5C filed an 
         application (Docket No. DH 610001HW) for a rent reduction based on the 
         owner's failure to maintain certain services, to wit: inadequate heat 
         and hot water.

         The owner's answer contended that the only major disruptions in heat 
         or hot water services were caused by the necessity for boiler repair, 
         and that minor disruptions were promptly attended to.

         On October 17, 1989, a physical inspection of the subject apartment 
         was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
         (DHCR).  The inspector, in his report, indicated that the temperature 
         of the hot water was inadequate.  No heat was required at the time of 
         the inspection.

         On October 24, 1989, the Administrator issued an order here under 
         review finding that a diminution of service had occurred and reducing 
         the rent to the level in effect prior to the last rent guideline 
         increase which commenced before the effective date of the order.

         In its petition for administrative review (Docket No. DK 610312RO) the 
         owner contends that the boiler had been recently repaired.  Further, 
         it contends that during the week that the inspection was conducted 
         adjustments were being made to the boiler and that no other tenants' 
         complaints were received that week.

         On October 5, 1989, thirty-four tenants were signatories to a 
         building-wide application (Docket No. DJ630092HW) for a rent reduction 
         based on the owner's failure to maintain adequate heat and hot water.

         The owner's answer contended, in substance, that any disruptions in 
         services were minor and that these minor disruptions were always 
         promptly attended to.

         On January 22, 1990, a physical inspection of various apartments was 
         carried out by DHCR.  The inspector, in his report, indicated that the 
         temperature of the hot water was inadequate in every inspected 
         apartment.  The heat was reported to be adequate.



         DOC. NOS.: DK 610312-RO, et al.






         On March 16, 1990, the Administrator issued an order here under review 
         finding that a diminution of services had occurred and reducing the 
         rent to the level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase 
         which commenced before the effective date of the order.  The 
         Administrator's determination was applicable to thirty-three of the 
         thirty-four signatories of the complaint.  The thirty-fourth signatory 
         was the tenant occupying apartment 5C.  The complaint of that tenant 
         was dismissed because it was a duplicate of Docket No. DH610001HW 
         previously decided.

         In its petition for administrative review (Docket No. ED 610246RO) the 
         owner contends that the hot water problems were only intermittent and 
         that final repairs were made to the boiler on January 30, 1990.  An 
         invoice is include to document this claim.  Further, the owner states 
         that it believed that the inspector visited only one or two apartments 
         and that this small sample was insufficient to grant a decrease to 
         thirty-three tenants.

         Numerous tenants filed answers to the owner's petition for review 
         stating, among other things, that the lack of hot water is a problem 
         which has existed for years and that the problem is substantial and 
         continual.

         On June 5, 1990, the owner filed thirty-three applications to restore 
         rent, alleging that all services had been restored.  All of these 
         thirty-three applications were consolidated under Docket No. EG630029- 
         OR.

         On November 21, 1990 a physical inspection of various apartments was 
         carried out by DHCR.  The inspector, in his report, indicated that the 
         temperature of the hot water was inadequate in every inspected 
         apartment.  The heat was reported to be adequate.

         On December 14, 1990, the Administrator issued orders here under 
         review denying the owner's applications to restore rents.

         In its petition for administrative review the owner repeats the 
         allegations made below and in its other petitions for review, namely, 
         that any disruption in services had been finally corrected on January 
         30, 1990.  It also points to two individual complaints of inadequate 
         hot water filed in the subject building which were dismissed after an 
         inspection disclosed that the water temperature in these two specific 
         apartments was adequate.

         After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
         these petitions should be denied.



         DOC. NOS.: DK 610312-RO, et al.


         First, the owner's allegation that an insufficient number of 












         apartments were inspected to constitute a representative sampling is 
         without merit.  In the inspection of January 22, 1990 eight apartments 
         were inspected with respect to the original services complaint.  Each 
         and every apartment inspected had inadequate hot water.   None of the 
         inspected apartments had adequate water temperature.  Clearly, this 
         represents a sufficiently large sampling of apartments to warrant a 
         rent reduction for all signatories of the complaint, as it indicates 
         a problem of a building-wide nature.  Similarly, in the inspection of 
         November 21, 1990 ten apartments were inspected.  Each and every 
         apartment inspected had inadequate hot water.  None of the inspected 
         apartments had adequate water temperature.  Again, the sampling of 
         apartments was sufficiently large to sustain the Administrator's 
         denial of the owner's application for a restoration of rent.

         Second, the owner's claim that two inspections of individual 
         complaints of inadequate hot water resulted in a dismissal of the 
         complaint is insufficient to reverse the Administrator's orders.  One 
         inspection of Apartment 2E under Docket No. DH 610011HW predated these 
         proceedings.  Subsequently, Apartment 2E again was one of the 
         inspected apartments and was found to have inadequate hot water.  The 
         second inspection cited by the owner involved Apartment 2G under 
         Docket No. EE610032HW.  The second case involved a non-signatory of 
         the complaint, and no rent reduction was ever granted to the tenant in 
         this apartment.

         Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code:

                   A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of 
                   the legal regulated rent to the level in effect 
                   prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, 
                   and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the 
                   period for which it is found that the owner has 
                   failed to maintain required services.

         Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include an 
         adequately maintained hot water supply.

         The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
         determinations on the entire record, including the results of the on- 
         site physical inspections conducted on October 17, 1989, January 22, 
         1990, and November 21, 1990 and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of 
         the Code, the Administrator was mandated to reduce the rent upon 
         determining that the owner had failed to maintain services.   In 
         addition, the Administrator correctly denied the owner's applications 
         for restoration of rents.



         DOC. NOS.: DK 610312-RO, et al.


         This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
         rights as they may pertain to a further application to the Division 
         for a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.





         THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 
         is

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

         ISSUED:


                                                                            
                                                 ELLIOT SANDER
                                                 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