Docket Number: EI-230004-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        ------------------------------------X  SJR No. 5544
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EI 230004-RO
                                               DOCKET   NO.   DI   230086-OR
                               PETITIONER   : 

        On September 4, 1990, the above-named owner  filed  a  petition  for
        administrative review of an order issued on July 31, 1990 by a  Rent
        Administrator concerning Various  apartments  located  at  60  Plaza
        Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the  Rent  Administrator  denied
        the owner's application for a restoration of rent.

        Subsequently, and after more than ninety days had elapsed  from  the
        time it filed its petition  for  administrative  review,  the  owner
        deemed its petition as  having  been  denied,  and  sought  judicial
        review in the Supreme Court of the State of  New  York  pursuant  to
        Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

        After considering the Article 78 petition, the Court issued an order 
        remitting the proceeding to the New York State Division  of  Housing
        and Community Renewal for further consideration.

        The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record  and
        has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to  the
        issues raised by the petition for review.

        This proceeding was commenced by the owner's filing applications  to
        restore rent, on September 15, 1989, from  a  rent  reduction  order
        under Docket No. KCS-000281-B, which was  issued  on  May  7,  1986.
        Various tenants submitted answers opposing the owner's  application,
        asserting that certain service defects found under Dock t  No.  KCS-
        000281-B were not remedied by the owner. 

        The Division of Housing and Community Renewal  (D.H.C.R.)  conducted
        an inspection of the  subject  premises,  on  June  11,  1990.   The
        inspection revealed the following defects:

                  1) Lobby hallway ceiling and walls have peeling
                     paint and plaster, mildew and waterstains;

                  2) There is peeling paint and plaster on the
                     6th floor ceiling of the "A" wing;

                  3) Entrance canopy has waterstains and entrance 
                     canopy concrete ceiling has peeling plaster;

          Docket Number: EI-230004-RO
                  4) Carpeting on the 2nd and 5th floors of the
                     "A" wing has been repaired in an unworkmanlike

                  5) All windows of both east and west wings require
                     caulking on all sides of window frames;

                  6) Courtyard concrete has cracks, and
                  7) There is peeling paint on fire escapes of A and
                     B section.

        The inspection revealed the following repairs had been completed:

                  1) There is no evidence of peeling paint and
                     plaster on bulkhead areas of both A and B wings;

                  2) There is no evidence of any defects to elevators;

                  3) Windows do not require any painting on exterior

        On July 31, 1990 the  Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order  under
        review  herein,  denying  the  landlord's   request   for   a   rent

        The owner's petition asserts that:

                  1) All defects listed in the inspector's report
                     are of a constantly recurring condition
                     requiring periodic maintenance, and alleges
                     that prior D.H.C.R. cases state that service
                     defects of a constantly recurring condition
                     should be no bar to rent restoration;

                  2) The cracks found in the entrance canopy
                     were not part of the original complaint;

                  3) The carpet in the subject building is from
                     the pre-war period; therefore, when the carpet
                     tears it is difficult to find material to 
                     replace it, and tears reported in the initial 
                     complaint were sewed or patched with a
                     carpet similar to the original; 

                  4) The owner repaired all of the items complained 
                     of in the original complaint, and filed two 
                     identical applications for a restoration of 
                     rent on March 31, 1988, and May 1, 1989.  The 
                     owner asserts that D.H.C.R. misplaced both 
                     applications, and that the petitioner re-filed 
                     his application for a third time.  Also, the 
                     owner alleges that the Rent Administrator did 
                     not inspect the subject premises until June, 
                     1990.  Therefore, the owner asserts, some of 
                     the items might require further maintenance 

          Docket Number: EI-230004-RO
                     over the course of four years;

                  5) The owner has no authority to make repairs
                     in the common areas of the building, because 
                     the subject premises are owned by a cooperative       
                     corporation, and the petitioner no longer has 
                     the legal right to complete repairs; 

                  6) The rent-controlled tenants' rents were
                     partially restored due to the fact that some 
                     defects were repaired.  Therefore, the rent for 
                     the rent-stabilized apartment should be 
                     partially restored also, and

                  7) The restoration of rent for rent-controlled 
                     tenants should be effective the first rent 
                     payment occurring thirty days after the filing 
                     of the owner's application, and not the 
                     effective date of the order.

        The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition  should
        be denied.

        The cases cited by the owner in  the  petition  are  distinguishable
        from the facts in this proceeding.  Two of the cases  cited  by  the
        owner's petition which were consolidated into one order, Docket Nos. 
        ARL09669-Q and ARL09735-Q, stated that a defect which  is  of  a  de
        minimus condition is not a bar to a restoration of the rent.  In the 
        above-mentioned cases the owner restored all of the services  except
        for repairing a broken washbasin  stopper,  which  the  Commissioner
        held was of  a  de  minimus  nature.   Therefore,  the  Commissioner
        granted the owner's petition to restore the ren .   The  two  above-
        mentioned  cases  are  distinguishable  from  the  facts   in   this
        proceeding, because the defects listed in the inspector's report are 
        numerous, are not of a minor nature, and if  fixed  properly  should
        not constantly recur, especially only four  years  after  the  owner
        allegedly repaired the defects.

        In the other case cited in the  owner's  petition,  Docket  No.  CB-
        130008-RO, the Commissioner granted the owner's petition to  restore
        rents.   In  the   above-mentioned   proceeding   the   Commissioner
        determined that the carpeting in the public areas was old and  worn,
        but not rippled, and was not hazardous, and was repaired.   However,
        the order advised the owner to replace the carpet within sixty  days
        of the issuance of the order or risk a reduction of rent  due  to  a
        failure to maintain services in any future services complaint.


          Docket Number: EI-230004-RO

        The matter decided in Docket No. CB130008-RO is distinguishable from 
        this proceeding, because in the case at bar the inspector determined 
        that the carpet was repaired but in an unworkmanlike manner, and was 
        not merely old and worn.

        The Commissioner notes that the owner had an  opportunity  to  raise
        the issue of whether cracks in the entrance canopy was mentioned  in
        the tenant's service reduction complaint (KCS-000281-B), but  failed
        to do so.  Accordingly, the  Commissioner  finds  that  the  owner's
        assertion in this proceeding  that  cracks  were  not  part  of  the
        original complaint, and should not be a bar to restoring  the  rent,
        is a collateral issue to this proceeding.  That  issue  should  have
        been raised in the owner's petition dealing with the  issue  of  the
        reduction of the rent (KCS-000281-B).  The Commissioner notes in any 
        event that cracks in the entrance canopy was not  a  service  defect
        listed in the Administrator's order reducing the rent.

        The owner's assertion that the defects mentioned in the  June,  1990
        inspector's report should not be  a  bar  to  restoring  the  rents,
        because the above-mentioned items were all  previously  repaired  in
        1986 and 1987, is without merit.  The fact that there are defects in 
        the items mentioned in the inspector's report after allegedly  being
        repaired  is  evidence  of  poor  workmanship  by   the   owner   in
        effectuating the repairs.  

        As  to  the  owner's  assertion  that  he  filed   three   identical
        applications for a restoration of rent  because  D.H.C.R.  misplaced
        the two earlier applications, the Commissioner finds that the  owner
        failed to produce any evidence that  the  two  earlier  applications
        were ever filed.  The Commissioner notes that even  if  the  owner's
        assertion is true, the owner fails to explain why it was almost  two
        years after the rent agency issued  the  order  reducing  the  rent,
        before the owner filed for a rent restoration.

        The Commissioner finds that owner has the responsibility  under  the
        rent laws to make repairs in the common areas of the  building.   As
        to the issue of the owner's not being allowed to make repairs by the 
        majority shareholders of the cooperative corporation, the owner must 
        resolve this issue with the shareholders in another forum.

        The Commissioner may not grant a parti l  rent  increase  for  rent-
        stabilized tenants for  a  partial  restoration  of  services  under
        Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization  Code.   Only  when  all
        services are restored may the stabilization rent be restored.

        As to the issue raised by the owner as  to  the  effective  date  of
        restoring partial rents to rent-controlled tenants, the Commissioner 
        finds that the Administrator correctly applied the  effective  dates
        of  reducing  and  restoring  rents,  pursuant  to  the   applicable
        regulations.  Pursuant to Section 2202.2 of the New York  City  Rent
        and Eviction Regulations an order increasing or decreasing a maximum 
        rent previously established shall not be effective prior to the date 


          Docket Number: EI-230004-RO

        on which the order is issued.  In the order reducing the re t  (KCS-
        000281-B) the Commissioner notes that  the  effective  date  of  the
        reduction  of  the  rent-controlled  tenants'  rent  was  the   date
        following the issuance of the order.

        Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner's petition should 
        be denied.

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

        ORDERED, that the owner's petition  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
        denied, and the Rent Administrator's order, be, and the same  hereby
        is, affirmed.


                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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