DK430019RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       DK430019RO

                    Bo Hing Realty Corp.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CL430053B
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 21, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on November 
          2, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 118 Madison Street, New York, New York, 
          various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that a 
          reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          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 appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of various apartments in the subject building.

          On December 16, 1988, the tenants filed a complaint alleging that 
          the owner failed to maintain services in the subject building.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging, in pertinent 
          part, that the tenants' complaint is baseless, without merit and 
          that the complaint was registered as retribution for a Major 
          Capital Improvement (MCI) rent increase granted by the DHCR.




          A DHCR inspection conducted on October 16, 1989, revealed that:













          DK430019RO

               1.   All public areas including back yard are filthy and there 
                    is a severe stench in the building due to the ground 
                    floor restaurant.  There is broken lumber on the fifth 
                    floor, large oil cans block access to the roof, and back 
                    yard contains restaurant refuse and rotted lumber.  Also, 
                    live poultry are harbored on premises at time of 
                    inspection.

               2.   Five(5) mailbox doors are broken.

               3.   Roach and rat infestation.

               4.   Fire escape (rear) is rusted.

               5.   Building entrance door lock is inoperative.

               6.   Back door and its lock are defective and door is kept 
                    open.

               7.   The bell and buzzer system is inoperative.

               THE FOLLOWING SERVICES WERE FOUND TO BE MAINTAINED:

               1.   The superintendent identification sign is posted.

               2.   The vestibule door and lock are adequate.

               The tenant may contact the NYC Board of Health Department for 
               the issue of live poultry in the backyard.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenants' complaint was filed as retribution because it was 
          granted an MCI increase by the DHCR; that the building was 
          subjected to a series of vandalous acts; that the inspector's 
          findings were flawed because certain deficiencies were corrected 
          and others were non-existent.

          The petition was served on the tenants on March 16, 1990, and on 
          April 3, 1990, the tenants filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that the owner had not fully restored services.

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




          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 (a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in 
          effect prior to the most recent guideline adjustment, and the DHCR 






          DK430019RO

          shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that 
          the owner has failed to maintain required services.

          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

          The Commissioner has considered and rejects the owner's argument 
          that the tenants caused the service deficiencies specified in the 
          complaint.

          The record clearly demonstrates that the Division conducted an 
          inspection on October 16, 1989, which showed many service 
          deficiencies.

          The record is absent any evidence that the tenants wilfully caused 
          the service deficiencies specified in the inspection report.

          The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator properly based 
          his determination on the entire record, including the results of 
          the on-site physical inspection conducted on October 16, 1989 and 
          that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator 
          was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to maintain services.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 
          determination.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of the owner's petition is vacated upon issuance of 
          this order and opinion.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner filed four consecutive 
          applications for rent restoration which were denied by the Rent 
          Administrator and that a fifth application is pending under Docket 
          No. GE430205OR.










          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is
          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.     
                  












          DK430019RO


          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