STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: DF230307RO

                    Melohn Properties,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: CG230112B


          On June 30, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on May 25, 1989 by the 
          Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          4750 Bedford Avenue, various apartments, Brooklyn, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined the specific services the 
          owner had failed to maintain, reduced the rent, and directed the 
          owner to restore the services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of 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 
          multiple decreases in services by various tenants dated July 26, 
          1988.  The owner was served with a copy of the tenants' complaint 
          and filed an answer either denying the complained of conditions or 
          otherwise asserting that they had been remedied.

          An inspection conducted by a DHCR staff inspector on March 21, 1989 
          revealed leak damage and crumbling plaster of the vestibule and 
          lobby ceiling and walls, cracked and stained plaster of the top 
          floor ceiling near front elevator, various public area floors in 
          need of mopping, and evidence of roach infestation in the 
          incinerator rooms.  In addition, the inspector found that the 
          intercom system, while operable, required a volume adjustment.

          The Administrator's order issued on May 25, 1989 cited the 
          following conditions: inadequate janitorial service in laundry 


          room, stairwells, and elevator; roach infestation in incinerator 
          rooms; adjustment needed to intercom; peeling paint and plaster in 
          hallways; and leak damaged walls and ceiling in vestibule.

          In the PAR, the owner contends that it was denied due process in 
          that it was not notified of the results of inspection, that the 
          inspection findings are either inaccurate, de minimis, or were 
          conditions not originally complained of.  Specifically, the owner 
          asserts that the water seepage complained of related to individual 
          apartments and not common areas, and that the lobby and vestibule 
          condition is caused by steam escaping from corroded steam return 
          lines and has nothing to do with water seepage.  The owner advises, 
          in this regard, that the lobby plaster work was completed on 
          February 16, 1989, before the Division's inspection, and that one 
          week after inspection the lobby was painted.

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

          The Commissioner rejects the owner's claim of denial of due process 
          in not having been apprised of the results of the Division's 
          inspection.  There is no requirement that this Division forward 
          copies of its inspection reports to the parties affected.  The 
          owner was given appropriate notice and an opportunity to respond 
          when it was served with a copy of the tenants' complaint.

          The owner's claim of no notice is disingenuous inasmuch as it now 
          alleges that necessary repairs were made even before this Division 
          conducted its inspection.

          As for the allegation that the water seepage complained of related 
          only to individual apartments and not to common areas, the 
          Commissioner notes that the tenants' complaint stated that there 
          were exterior leaks including specific apartments.  (Emphasis 
          Added.)  The complaint gave adequate notice to the owner to 
          investigate all apparent leaks in the building and not only those 
          in the apartments listed.

          The Commissioner also rejects the owner's defense that the lobby 
          and vestibule condition is not caused by exterior leaks and 
          therefore does not fall within the ambit of the complaint.  The 
          Commissioner finds that it makes no difference how the damage was 
          caused.  The tenants are not expected to know the root cause of a 
          concealed leak.  Nevertheless, the owner has the duty to 
          investigate all possible causes for the condition and to make 

          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, 


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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