DD220355RT, et al.


                                    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
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:             
                                                  DD220335RT;  DD220336RT;
             VARIOUS TENANTS OF                   DE220150RT
             8320 BAY PARKWAY, BROOKLYN, NY          
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                  PETITIONERS     DOCKET NO.:
          ----------------------------------x     CE210084B



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          With regard to Docket Nos. DD220335RT, DD220336RT, and DE220150RT, 
          various tenants filed timely petitions for administrative review 
          (PARs) of an order issued on April 12, 1989, by the Rent Adminis- 
          trator, concerning the housing accommodations known as 8320 Bay 
          Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, various apartments, wherein the 
          Administrator determined that the tenants' application for a 
          decrease in rent should be denied.

          The Commissioner has consolidated these three petitions as they 
          involve the same housing accommodation and similar issues of law 
          and fact.

          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 administrative appeals.        

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly denied 
          the application for a reduction in rent.

          This proceeding was commenced on May 26, 1988, when one rent 
          stabilized tenant filed a building-wide complaint alleging that the 
          locks on the entrance doors of the "B" and "C" Sections are defec- 
          tive, allowing intruders to go over the roof to the "A" Section as 
          well. 

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the front- 
          door building locks were repaired in the summer of 1988.














          DD220355RT, et al.






          A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection con- 
          ducted on February 8, 1989, revealed that the building entrance 
          doors in Sections "B" and "C" are in good working condition but 
          that the door-check attached to the door frame in the "C" Section 
          was loose.

          Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed restoration of 
          services but did not order a rent reduction.  The order was sent to 
          the one stabilized complaining tenant and all rent controlled 
          tenants in the building.

          In the appeals, the petitioner-tenants assert, in pertinent part, 
          that the Sections "B" and "C" building entrance-doors are 
          defective.

          With regard to Docket Nos. DD220335RT, DD220336RT and DE220150RT, 
          the petitions were respectively served on the owner on June 12, 
          1989, June 13, 1989 and June 22, 1989.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeals 
          should be denied.

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires the DHCR to 
          order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, where it is 
          found that the owner has failed to maintain required services.

          The record in the instant case reveals that only one rent 
          stabilized tenant filed a complaint, not joined by any other 
          stabilized or controlled tenant.  The Rent Administrator's order 
          properly determined that a rent reduction was not warranted based 
          on the physical inspection which failed to confirm the existence of 
          the conditions described in the complaint.  The three tenants who 
          filed these appeals are rent controlled tenants who did not file 
          complaints with the Rent Administrator but may still do so if the 
          conditions complained of have not been resolved.

          This order is without prejudice to the tenants' continuing right to 
          file an appropriate application with the DHCR Compliance Bureau to 
          enforce the owner's obligation to correct the loose door-check if 
          the facts so warrant.












                    





          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza- 
          tion Law and Code, it is

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


          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner