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

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.: DF420169RO
          KIZNER ASSOCIATES, INC,                 RENT
          JOSEPH KIZNER                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DC430064RP

               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact.

               On April 21, 1989 and on June 23, 1989 the above named 
          petitioner-owner filed Petitions for Administrative Review against 
          a Notice of Commencement of Proceeding to Reconsider Previous Order 
          dated March 24, 1989 and an order of the Rent Administrator issued 
          on May 22, 1989, respectively. The notice and order concerned the 
          housing accommodations located at 332 West 89th Street, New York, 
          N.Y., various apartments. The Administrator issued an order of 
          revocation in which the related rent restoration order bearing 
          Docket No. BF420046OR and the rent reduction order bearing Docket 
          No. LC000017B, were revoked.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these 

               This proceeding was commenced on June 20, 1984 when 8 tenants 
          of this 10 unit building joined in filing a Statement of Complaint 
          of Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged, in sum, 
          that the owner was not maintaining certain required building-wide 

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The Administrator ordered a physical 
          inspection of the subject building.  The inspection was conducted 
          on March 29, 1985 and revealed that the public areas were clean but 
          that there was no resident superintendent.  The inspector reported, 
          however, that the name and phone number of the nonresident 
          superintendent was posted in the lobby.  The inspector also 
          reported the existence of conditions not cited in the complaint.


               The Administrator notified the owner of the inspector's report 
          and the owner was afforded a period of time to rectify the 
          conditions.  A reinspection of the building was conducted on 
          November 8, 1986 wherein the inspector reported that the public 
          areas were dirty and that there was inadequate janitorial service.

               The Administrator issued a rent reduction order on July 28, 
          1986 and ordered a rent reduction for the rent controlled tenants 
          as well as those rent stabilized tenants who joined in filing the 

               The owner then requested reconsideration of the 
          Administrator's order, arguing that the above described rent 
          reduction order contained an irregularity in a vital matter.  The 
          owner stated that the initial inspection report noted that the 
          public areas were clean, that there was a sign posted with the name 
          and phone number of the nonresident superintendent and that a 
          resident superintendent is not required in a building of less than 
          13 units.  The owner also argued that the reinspection of the 
          building, which was conducted on November 8, 1988, was erroneously 
          ordered based on reported conditions that were not part of the 
          original complaint and that the complaint should have been denied.

               The Administrator sent a Notice of Commencement of Proceeding 
          to Reconsider Previous Order to the parties on March 24, 1989 and 
          requested that the parties advise as to whether the building was 
          being maintained.  The Administrator agreed with the owner's 
          argument that a building of less than 13 units did not require a 
          resident superintendent.  On May 22, 1989 the order being appealed 
          was issued by the Administrator.  The order noted that the 
          regulations of the New York City Office of Code Enforcement stated 
          that a building containing 9 to 12 families where the owner does 
          not live on the premises must have a janitor who lives on the same 
          block and must have janitorial services provided.  The 
          Administrator noted that the first inspection report described 
          above revealed that the public areas were clean and that the sign 
          containing the information about the janitor was posted in the 
          lobby.  Accordingly, the Administrator revoked the order bearing 
          Docket No. LC000017B and further revoked a rent restoration order 
          bearing Docket No. BF420046OR as having no merit.

               The owner filed two administrative appeals, which have been 
          consolidated for decision as noted above.  The Commissioner 
          initially notes that the proceeding bearing Docket No. DD430103RO 
          is an appeal of the March 24, 1989 Notice of Commencement of 
          Proceeding to Reconsider Previous Order.  Pursuant to the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code and Rent and Eviction Regulations this 
          notice is not an appealable order and this appeal is, therefore, 

               In the appeal assigned Docket No. DF420169RO the owner states 
          that it has incurred legal costs and expenses in this matter and 


          that the rents should not have been reduced.  The petition was 
          served on the tenants on September 19, 1989.

               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, in order for a party to file an 
          administrative appeal, it must demonstrate that it has been 
          aggrieved by the issuance of the order here under review.  In the 
          instant proceeding, the Administrator's order of revocation does 
          not aggrieve the owner and, in fact, supports the contention that 
          the rent reduction ordered in Docket No. LC000017B was erroneous.  
          The petition is therefore denied and the order is affirmed.

               The Commissioner further notes there is no provision in the 
          Code or Regulations which provides for the award of legal costs and 
          expenses in proceedings instituted upon the filing of a services 

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is 

               ORDERED, that the petition bearing Docket No. DD430103RO be, 
          and the same hereby is, dismissed, and it is further, 

               ORDERED, that the petition bearing Docket No. DF420169RO, be 
          and the same hereby is denied and that the Rent Administrator's 
          order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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