ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB - 230040 - 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 NOS.:              
                                                 EB - 230040 - RO; 
                                              :  EB - 230106 - RT
                                                 
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 CL 230071 - B              
              BEN HAIMOWITZ       
                  PETITIONER-OWNER                           
                                                  
              WILFREDO CANDELA
                       PETITIONER-TENANT      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

                   ORDER AND OPINION DENYING OWNER'S AND TENANT'S
                         PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On February 8, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner  filed
          a Petition for  Administrative  Review  (PAR)  against  an  order
          issued on January 10, 1990 by the  Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz
          Plaza, Jamaica, New York, concerning the  housing  accommodations
          known as 315 Ocean  Parkway,  Brooklyn,  New  York,  wherein  the
          Administrator  determined  the  tenants'  joint  complaint  of  a
          decrease in several building-wide services. 

               The challenged order granted rent reductions  based  on  the
          results of an inspection conducted  on  November  16,  1989  that
          confirmed the tenants' complaint of inadequate  lighting  in  the
          sixth floor hallways, a cracked and broken  front  sidewalk,  and
          holes in the fifth floor hallway  ceiling.   A  number  of  other
          service conditions were found to have been resolved.   The  issue
          of doorman service was dismissed due to the tenants'  default  in
          responding to a request for additional information.   

               The applicable law is Section 2520.6(r) and  2523.4  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code.  






               On appeal, the owner asserts that new lighting fixtures have 
          been installed and that the cracks  in  the  sidewalk  have  been
          repaired.  The owner denies that there were holes in the  ceiling
          in any public area.

               One tenant, claiming  to  be  the  tenants'  representative,
          filed a petition requesting that  the  Administrator's  order  be
          amended to  reflect  several  of  the  conditions  cited  in  the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: EB - 230040 - RO
          complaint. 

               The appeals have been consolidated as  they  involve  common
          issues of law or fact.  The applicable law is  Section  2520.6(r)
          and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

               As to the claim that the conditions have been corrected, the 
          petition does not make clear whether the repairs  had  been  made
          before the order was issued or  whether  the  repairs  were  made
          following the issuance of the order.  If it is the former,  there
          was  no  evidence  presented  to  the   Administrator   for   his
          consideration to warrant  a  different  result.   If  it  is  the
          latter, then the determination was correct as issued.  In  either
          case, there is no warrant to reconsider the findings. 

               Concerning both the owner's and the tenant's suggestion that 
          the Administrator's findings were not accurate, the  Commissioner
          notes that the inspector is not a party to  the  proceedings  and
          not  an  adversary  to  either   the   owner   or   the   tenant.
          Consequently,   his   impartial   observations   were    afforded
          substantially more  weight  by  the  Administrator,  than  either
          parties' self-serving allegations. 

               The  petitioner-tenant  alleged  that  he  is  the  tenants'
          representative.  However, Section 2529.1  of  the  Code  provides
          that a PAR must be verified or affirmed by  each  person  joining
          therein, and that a PAR filed by a representative  must  include,
          at the time of filing the PAR, written evidence of  authorization
          to act in such representative capacity for the purpose of  filing
          the PAR.  The one tenant that signed the PAR  failed  to  present
          written  evidence  of  authority  to  act  in  a   representative
          capacity.  It is, therefore, deemed that  the  petitioner  tenant
          filed individually.    

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is






               ORDERED, that the owner's  and  the  tenant's  petitions  be
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be affirmed.

          ISSUED:




                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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