DG630320RO


                                    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
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
                                                  DG630320RO
                 TWO MARION REALTY CO.,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     DA630197HW              
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                  IN PART AND MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER


          On July 12, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 7, 1989, 
          by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as various apartments at 2557 Marion Avenue, Bronx, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the owner was not 
          maintaining adequate hot water service, directed restoration of 
          such service, and ordered rent reductions for rent stabilized and 
          rent controlled tenants.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The record reveals that 38 tenants of the 54 apartments in the 
          subject building joined in filing a Statement of Complaint of a 
          Decrease in Building-Wide Services on January 24, 1989.  The 
          tenants alleged in the complaint that the elevator is constantly 
          out of order, heat and hot water services are often interrupted 
          without explanation, the public areas are not cleaned properly, and 
          the trash compactors are not emptied often enough.

          In accordance with DHCR procedures, the heat and hot water aspect 
          of the complaint was given a separate docket number and processed 
          on an expedited basis.














          DG630320RO






          The complaint was sent to the owner on February 28, 1989 with a 
          notice explaining that the tenants had alleged a failure to provide 
          heat and/or hot water.

          The owner filed an answer on April 4, 1989, in which every aspect 
          of the complaint was addressed except the heat and hot water 
          complaint.

          A physical inspection of the premises by the Division of Housing 
          and Community Renewal (DHCR) took place on April 28, 1989 when the 
          outside temperature was 72@ and heat was not required.  The 
          inspector was able to gain access to 23 apartments and found that 
          the hot water temperature was inadequate in apartments on the third 
          floor and above.

          Based on this inspection, the Rent Administrator issued the orders 
          appealed herein, reducing the rent to the level in effect prior to 
          the most recent guidelines adjustment for all stabilized tenants on 
          the third floor and above who joined in the complaint and by 7% of 
          the maximum legal collectible rent for all rent controlled tenants 
          on the third floor and above.  No rent reduction was ordered for 
          tenants on the first and second floors.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner, through 
          counsel asserts that the owner was never served with a copy of the 
          tenants' complaint regarding inadequate heat and hot water.  The 
          petitioner also alleges that there are errors in the status of 
          tenants listed for certain apartments in the order, that some 
          tenants who were granted a rent reduction admit never filing a 
          complaint, that the owner did receive a complaint signed by various 
          tenants but it did not mention heat and hot water, and that this 
          complaint did not contain a request for a rent reduction.

          The petition was served on the tenants on November 23, 1989.  
          Several tenants submitted answers stating in relevant part that 
          heat and hot water services continue to be provided on a sporadic 
          basis. 

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part.












                    




          The owner's claim that it was not served with the complaint is 
          belied by the evidence of record which reveals that the complaint 
          was sent to the owner, that it was specifically described as a 
          complaint regarding inadequate heat and hot water, that the owner 
          admits receiving a complaint with the allegations on it that were 
          on the same complaint with the heat and hot water complaint, and 
          that the owner filed an answer to the complaint.

          The owner is correct, however, that no request for a rent reduction 
          was made by the tenants.  In the absence of such a request, a rent 
          reduction for rent stabilized tenants is not warranted pursuant to 
          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code and must be revoked.

          For rent controlled tenants, however, Section 2202.16 of the Rent 
          and Eviction Regulations authorizes a rent reduction, where there 
          has been a decrease in essential services, in an amount which the 
          Administrator finds to be the reduction in rental value of the 
          housing accommodations because of the decreased services.  It is 
          not necessary that rent controlled tenants request a rent reduction 
          or even join in signing the complaint.  A complaint by one rent 
          controlled tenant regarding building-wide services results in a 
          rent reduction for all rent controlled apartments in the building.

          The owner's allegations regarding the status of certain apartments 
          are without merit.  The Division's records confirm that the 
          Administrator's order correctly identified rent controlled and rent 
          stabilized apartments.  However, one tenant, Judy Faucette, is 
          incorrectly identified as occupying Apartment 3-D, rather than 3-E.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          modified to revoke the rent reduction for rent stabilized tenants.


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                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