DHCR Decisions        Adm. Review Docket No.: EB-230023 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 230023 RO                                            :               3021-3031 BRIGHTON 13TH           DRO DOCKET NO.: DE 230087-B               REALTY CORP.,                  :                                                      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  against  an  order  issued  on        January 22, 1990 by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza,  Jamaica,        New York, concerning the housing accommodations known  as  3021-3031        Brighton 13th Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the  Administrator        reduced the rents for rent controlled tenants based on a finding  of        a reduction of building-wide services.        The  issue  in  this  proceeding  is  whether  the   Administrator's        determination was correct.        The applicable law  is  Section  2202.16  of  the  Rent  &  Eviction        Regulations.        One tenant commenced these proceedings on May 17, 1989 by  filing  a        complaint, alleging that the owner had  failed  to  provide  certain        building-wide and individual apartment services.  Specifically,  the        tenant complained that garbage bags filled  with  bottles  and  cans        were left on various floor, resulting in foul odors  and  roach  and        rodent infestation; that the public  areas  were  filthy;  and  that        water was seeping into his bathroom from the apartment above.        The owner denied the tenant's  complaint  of  garbage  accumulation,        filthy public areas and of roach and rodent infestation.  The  owner        also indicated that the tenant refused access to her  apartment  for        inspection and repair of  the  water  leak  condition,  and  that  a        inspection of the apartments above and adjacent to  the  tenant  had        failed to detect evidence of the alleged water seepage.        The owner's documentation in support of its  statements  included  a        letter from the owner's pest control contractor  that  extermination        services were provided once a month, the superintendent's  affidavit        that the tenant refused access to inspect and repair water leaks,  a        mailgram providing one week advance notice requesting the tenant  to        provide the  owner's  repair  team  access  on  the  date  and  time        specified, as well as notice to the Administrator that the tenant        failed to do so.  Also submitted, was a copy of  a  statement  dated        July 1, 1989, apparently signed by  fifteen  (15)  tenants,  to  the        effect that they had no  objection  or  complaint  to  the  sanitary        conditions in the common areas, and that the superintendent  cleaned        Adm. Review Docket No.: EB-230023 RO        the premises daily.        An inspection was conducted on November 30, 1989 by a member of  the        Division's inspection staff.        The Administrator reduced the rents for the rent controlled  tenants        by $3.00 effective prospectively, based on findings  of  debris  and        dirt stains throughout the public hallways and stairways,  and  that        the  interior   and   exterior   areas   required   cleaning.    The        Administrator's order also reflected that  the  inspector  found  no        evidence of foul odor in the subject premises  and  no  evidence  of        roach and rodent infestation.        In the petition the owner asserts that the  conditions  observed  by        the inspector were the result of  plastering  work  to  prepare  the        public areas for painting.        Despite statements below and at PAR that areas were  cleaned  daily,        the inspector reported that there was debris in the public areas  of        the premises and that the hallways and stairways were stained.        The  Commissioner  also  notes  that  the  petitioner  submitted  no        evidence below or on appeal  that  the  conditions  found  were  the        result of plastering work done  to  prepare  the  public  areas  for        painting.  Moreover, an owner remains  responsible  for  maintaining        the premises safe and as clean of debris,  even  during  periods  of        maintenance and repairs, as conditions permit.        For all these reasons the Administrator's order  is  affirmed.   The        petitioner is advised to file a rent restoration application for any        outstanding  rent  reductions,  if  the   conditions   were   indeed        temporary, as asserted in the instant appeal.          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the   provisions   of   the   Rent        Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 403 of the  Laws  of  1984,  and        Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, it is        ORDERED, that the owner's  petition  be  and  the  same  hereby  is,        denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby        is affirmed, as provided above.        ISSUED:                                                                                                              ELLIOT SANDER                                        Deputy Commissioner