DHCR Decisions        Adm. Review Docket No.: EB 130259-RO                                 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.: EB 130259-RO                                            :               KRUMHOLZ ASSOCIATES,              DRO DOCKET NO.: DC 130064-B                                PETITIONER    :        ------------------------------------X                                               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW        On February 12,  1990,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a        Petition for Administrative Review of against  an  order  issued  on        January 24, 1990 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,  Jamaica,        New York, concerning the housing accommodation known as  45-19  39th        Place, Queens, New York, wherein the Administrator reduced  tenants'        rents based on a finding of a reduction of building-wide services.          The issue in these proceedings is whether the Administrator's  order        was correct.        The applicable law  is  Section  2202.16  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction        Regulations  and  Section  2520.6(r)  and   2523.4   of   the   Rent        Stabilization Code.        The tenants commenced the proceeding on March 9, 1989  by  filing  a        complaint  of  decrease  in  building-wide  services.   The  tenants        alleged that electrical wiring was old and decayed;  that  the  side        areas and backyard  were  littered  with  debris;  that  there  were        plumbing leaks throughout the building; that hallways and side alley        stairs were broken and decayed; that  the  entrance  door  lock  was        defective and frequently broken; that hallway windows did  not  stay        open, resulting in a dangerous condition; and  that  mailboxes  were        dented, had damaged locks, and failed to stay closed.        The owner responded that wiring was in good working order; that  the        exterior public areas were clean and  well  maintained;  that  there        were no plumbing leaks; that the hallway and alley stairways were in        good condition and that decayed stairways had  been  repaired;  that        the entrance door was in working order; and that new hallway windows        had been installed.  The owner also enclosed  copies  of  statements        signed by several tenants, to the effect that the services  provided        in the building were to their satisfaction.        An inspection was conducted on November 15, 1989 by a member of  the        Division's inspection staff.         Adm. Review Docket No.: EB 130259-RO        Based on the inspection, the Administrator issued orders on  January        24, 1990, reducing the rents  for  both  rent  controlled  and  rent        stabilized rents.  The controlled rents were reduced by  $12.00  per        month based on findings of cracked steps in the northhallway        ($5.00), cracked steps in the  south  hallway  ($5.00)  and  cracked        hallway steps ($2.00).  The rents for stabilized tenants were        reduced the percentage of the most recent guideline  adjustment  for        each tenants' lease which commenced before  the  effective  date  of        this order May 1, 1989.        The petitioner requests that the Administrator's order  be  reversed        arguing that the owner's response below indicated  that  the  stairs        had been repaired and were  in  good  condition,  and  that  several        tenants had agreed that the repairs were to their satisfaction.        After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that        the petition should be denied.        The tenants' statement to the effect that the tenants considered the        services in the building to  be  to  their  satisfaction  was  of  a        general nature and  did  not  specifically  address  the  conditions        found.   Moreover  the  statement  reflected  the  tenants'  general        opinions, and was too  vague  to  rise  to  the  level  of  specific        objective evidence based on examination and observation, required to        warrant dismissal of the tenants' complaint.        In fact, the inspection revealed that the conditions still  remained        approximately  nine  (9)  months  after  the  tenants  filed   their        complaint and more than five (5) months after some tenants expressed        their opinions that they were satisfied with the services provided.        THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law  and  Code,        the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1984, and Chapter 403 of  the        Laws of 1983, as amended by Chapter 102  of  the  Laws  of  1984  as        implemented by Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is        ORDERED, that this petition be and the same  is  hereby  denied  and        that the Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.        ISSUED:                                                                                                              ELLIOT SANDER                                        Deputy Commissioner