DC130232RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: DC130232RO

                    Petrex Realty Co.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: CC130059B
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On March 13, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on February 
          6, 1989, by the Rent Administrator,  concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 34-06 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, N.Y., 
          wherein the Administrator reduced the rent for various rent 
          stabilized tenants upon a finding of a decrease in services 
          building wide.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint of 
          reduction in services by nine tenants dated May 20, 1988.  A copy 
          of the tenants' complaint was served on the owner who responded to 
          the complaint stating essentially, that the services complained of 
          are, in fact, being provided, and that any deficiencies are the 
          fault of the tenants who fail to cooperate in keeping the building 
          clean.

          Thereafter, an inspection of the subject premises conducted by a 
          Division employee on November 10, 1988 confirmed the existence of 
          some of the complained of conditions, resulting in the issuance of 
          the Administrator's order, herein appealed.





          In the PAR, the owner contends that the conditions cited in the 
          Administrator's order do not constitute a decrease in required 












          DC130232RO

          services; that the tenants have filed duplicate complaints and 
          received duplicate rent reductions; that in one of those duplicate 
          complaints the Administrator found no decrease in services, and 
          that the owner was denied due process when an inspection was 
          conducted without notice and without opportunity to reply to the 
          inspection report afterwards.

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

          The owner is correct in its assertion that multiple complaints were 
          filed pertaining to the subject building and which alleged the same 
          or similar conditions.  The complaints, however, were not filed by 
          the same tenants.  A review of those complaints indicates that each 
          was filed by a different tenant or group of tenants and that no 
          order granted any tenant the benefit of more than one rent 
          reduction for alleging the same conditions. 

          With regard to the owner's contention that it was entitled to 
          notice of the inspection and a copy of the inspector's report, DHCR 
          policy, as upheld by the courts, is that the filing of the 
          complaint puts the owner on adequate notice of the existence of 
          services deficiencies and the need to investigate.  (see Empress 
          Manor Apartments v. DHCR 538 N.Y.S.2d 49, 2nd. Dept. [1989].  The 
          owner was afforded due process by the proper service of the 
          tenants' complaint.
            
          The owner contends that one of the duplicate complaints was 
          resolved in the owner's favor with the Administrator finding no 
          decrease in services and implies that this apparent inconsistency 
          should render the order herein meritless.

          The instant proceeding involves the maintenance of certain 
          building-wide services.  In accordance with standard agency 
          processing, an impartial inspection was conducted which confirmed 
          some of the complained of conditions in this proceeding, although 
          a different inspection carried out at a different time with respect 
          to another complaint failed to find the same conditions.  Since 
          building maintenance is an on-going process, one can expect to find 
          different conditions at various times.  A failure to confirm a 
          specific condition on one day has no effect on a positive finding 
          another day any more then a positive finding in this case would 
          render nugatory the favorable inspection report this owner received 
          in the other case cited.  Owner has presented no evidence to 
          indicate that the inspection findings were not impartial.  In fact, 
          the owner does not dispute the inspection findings at all, but only 
          argues that such findings do not rise to the level of a service 
          decrease.  As the rules applied to the processing of this 
          complaint, as well as the other one cited by the owner, were 
          exactly the same, the varying results are indicative of the 
          conditions actually prevailing at time of inspection.         







          DC130232RO

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent 
          part that a tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated 
          rent to the level in effect prior to the most recent guidelines 
          adjustment, and DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the period for 
          which it is found that the owner failed to maintain required 
          services.

          In the instant case, a review of the record, which included the 
          results of a physical inspection conducted at the subject premises, 
          reveals that the owner failed to maintain services.  Accordingly, 
          the Commissioner finds that the District Rent Administrator's 
          determination that the owner failed to maintain services was 
          warranted and that the Administrator properly reduced the tenant's 
          rent. 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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
                                             Deputy Commissioner