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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:  EE430046RO
          301 REALTY CO.                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DI430130OR

               On May 19, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued April 19, 1990. The order concerned various 
          housing accommodations located at 301 East 38th Street, New York, 
          N.Y.  The Administrator granted in part the owner's rent 
          restoration application with regard to rent controlled tenants and 
          denied the application with regard to rent stabilized tenants.

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

               The owner commenced this proceeding on September 29, 1989 by 
          filing a rent restoration application wherein it alleged that it 
          had restored services for which a rent reduction order bearing 
          Docket No. CJ430139B had been issued.  The Commissioner notes that 
          the Administrator ordered a rent reduction based on the following 
          findings of decreased services: cracked sidewalks, courtyard and 
          exterior walls undergoing renovation, bulkhead and skylights in 
          poor condition, vent stacks leaning, public windows in poor 
          condition, rusted fire escapes, discontinuation of storage space 
          and one passenger elevator being used as freight elevator.

               The tenants were served with copies of the application and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. Various tenants filed responses 
          to the effect that services had not been restored and that the 
          order here under review should be affirmed.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on March 9, 1990. The 
          inspector reported the following:


                    1.   Rear courtyard renovation not completed,

                    2.   South/east roof bulkhead ceiling and wall are in 
                         poor condition, peeling paint and plaster 

                    3.   Vent stacks leaning,

                    4.   Public windows have rotted metal fames and missing 

                    5.   Storage space has been discontinued,

                    6.   West elevator is being used as freight elevator.

          The inspector also reported that there was no evidence of cracked 
          sidewalks, that the exterior walls have been repaired and that 
          there is no evidence of rusty fire escapes.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on April  
          19, 1990.  With regard to rent controlled tenants, rent restoration 
          of $10.00 per month was ordered. The owner was given leave to 
          reapply for the remaining $17.00 per month when services were fully 
          restored.  The application was denied with regard to rent 
          stabilized tenants.

               On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that 
          the mere renovation of the courtyard, without more is an 
          insufficient basis for a rent reduction, that the condition 
          involving the bulkheads and skylights is not related to the 
          original finding in the rent reduction order and amount to a new 
          condition, that a leaning vent stack is not a per se decrease in 
          services, that there is no evidence that the vent stacks are 
          malfunctioning, that the finding regarding public area windows 
          lacks specificity about which windows are defective, that storage 
          space is being provided and was only temporarily removed, and that 
          there always was one freight elevator and one passenger elevator in 
          the subject building.  The petition was served on the tenants on 
          August 16, 1990.

               One tenant filed a response. However the response was not 
          relevant to the issues raised in the administrative appeal.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The owner's petition for administrative review is a 
          restatement of arguments raised and rejected by the Commissioner in 
          the administrative appeal filed against the rent reduction order.  
          In Docket No. DJ430035RO the Commissioner rejected the owner's 
          defenses on the grounds that the owner did not file a response to 
          the rent reduction complaint.  The scope of review of an 


          administrative appeal being limited to facts or evidence presented 
          before the Administrator, the Commissioner ruled that the owner's 
          defenses would not be considered. The Commissioner notes that the 
          findings in the rent reduction order concerning the renovations to 
          the courtyard and exterior walls were revoked.  The Commissioner 
          rejects the owner's attempts to relitigate the issues which were 
          considered in the prior order.

               With regard to the owner's argument that the condition 
          relating to the south/east bulkhead is a new condition, the 
          Commissioner notes that the initial complaint in the rent reduction 
          proceeding was that the bulkheads were in "poor condition".  The 
          inspector in the rent reduction proceeding corroborated this 
          finding.  The inspector in this proceeding also reported that the 
          south/east bulkhead was in poor condition and proceeded to 
          elaborate on the peeling paint and plaster condition.  In the 
          opinion of the Commissioner, the Administrator's finding related to 
          the original finding in the rent reduction order and does not 
          constitute a "new" condition.
               The Commissioner also notes that the physical inspection 
          conducted in this proceeding was carried out by a DHCR employee who 
          is neither a party to this proceeding nor an adversary.  The 
          inspector's report is entitled to more probative weight than the 
          owner's allegations as contained in the petition.  The order here 
          under review is affirmed.

                 The Commissioner notes that the owner reapplied for rent 
          restoration and said application was granted in an order bearing 
          Docket No. EE430008OR which was issued on February 15, 1991.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City 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, affirmed.


                                             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