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.: DC430078RO
STANDARD PROPERTIES CORP. RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 2, 1989 the above named petitioner-owner timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued December 12, 1988. The order
concerned various housing accommodations located at 127 Ludlow
Street, New York, N.Y. The Administrator denied the owner's rent
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The owner commenced this proceeding on July 27, 1988 by filing
a rent restoration application wherein it stated that it had
restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing Docket
No. BA430042B had been issued. The Commissioner notes that the
rents had been ordered reduced based on findings of unclean public
areas and intercom bells not working.
The tenants were served with copies of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses
to the application and stated that the owner had not restored
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on November 7, 1988 and
revealed that the owner had not restored either service. The
Administrator issued the order here under review on December 12,
1988 and denied the application based on the inspector's report.
On appeal the owner states, in relevant part, that a posted
sign with information about the building superintendent has
repeatedly been torn down and that the tenants have the telephone
number of the part-time superintendent and can contact him to
correct the condition involving the public hallways. The owner
further states that it made good faith efforts to repair the
intercom system and is awaiting the delivery of a new bell and
buzzer system. The petition was served on the tenants.
A tenant representative filed a response on June 7, 1989 and
stated, in sum, that the owner's allegations in the petition are
without merit and that the petition should be denied. The owner
filed a reply on July 10, 1988 wherein it stated, in relevant part,
that the new intercom system had been installed.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the physical inspection of the
building carried out on November 7, 1988 was conducted by a DHCR
employee who is neither a party to this proceeding nor an
adversary. The inspector's report is dispositive of the issue of
whether or not the owner has restored services. The owner has not
rebutted the Administrator's determination, based on the
inspection, that services were not restored. The owner should
maintain the public areas in a clean condition without repeated
requests by the tenants. Moreover, the owner concedes that an
operational intercom system with bells and buzzers was not
installed until after the order appealed herein was issued. The
order hereunder review is affirmed. The Commissioner notes that
the owner's reapplication for rent restoration (Docket No.
GD420073OR) is pending before the DHCR.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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