DD220355RT, et al.
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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
VARIOUS TENANTS OF DE220150RT
8320 BAY PARKWAY, BROOKLYN, NY
PETITIONERS DOCKET NO.:
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
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
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
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
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA