DOCKET NO.: EF810181RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO. EF810181RO
: DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
SCARSDALE VIEW ASSOCIATES by DOCKET NO. WEB910003B
BARRY AKRONGOLD :
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative review of
an order issued concerning the housing accommodations known as 33 Van Wart
Avenue, various apartments, White Plains, NY.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issues
raised by the petition.
The tenants commenced this proceeding on or about February 13, 1990 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject premises. Beside their own allegations, the
tenants included in their complaint a report of an inspection of the
subject premises conducted on December 15, 1989 by the Department of
Buildings of the City of White Plains, said inspection finding violations
of four sections of the Minimum Housing Standards Ordinance of the City of
The owner responded to the tenants' complaint on February 15, 1990. The
owner specifically addressed four of the numerous defects alleged by the
tenants in their complaint. The owner stated that broken sidewalks had
been repaired and that the roof gutters had been cleaned and repaired,
thus obviating tenants' complaints of water damage. The owner also stated
that the basement foundation had been repaired to an extent so as to
eliminate basement flooding. The owner also contended in its reply that
the poor condition of the laundry room door did not constitute a decrease
in service since that door was not used by the tenants. The owner added
that this door was being repaired anyway. The owner further alleged that
the building is undergoing a co-op conversion and "the tenant who filed
this complaint" is "jealous" of other tenants.
On March 5, 1990 the tenants submitted an answer to the owner, stating
that the sidewalks had only been partially repaired, the laundry room door
in question is used by the tenants, the gutters still spill over, and
there is still a flooding problem (despite owner's allegations of basement
DOCKET NO.: EF810181RO
On May 17, 1990 the Administrator issued the order under review herein,
finding that the previously named defects existed at the subject premises.
The Administrator based this finding partially on the above-cited White
Plains inspection report, and partially on the "evidence in the record."
On appeal the owner argues that the Administrator erred by not ordering an
inspection of the subject premises to determine the veracity of either the
owner's claim that repairs had been made or the tenants' claim that
repairs had not been made. The owner also argues that the Administrator
erred by failing to "draw any reasonable connection between the alleged
problems and the tenant's apartments, or any diminished value to
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
At the outset the Commissioner notes that because the complaint was of
building-wide service decreases (such as decreases in public areas) there
is no necessary connection to any particular apartment. Furthermore,
under Rent Stabilization the rent decrease ordered when a service
complaint is granted is to roll back the rent by a Guidelines increase,
not by the rental value of the decreased service.
An examination of the record reveals that, on April 3, 1991 the owner
filed an Application to Restore Rent at the subject premises, under Docket
# WFD910008OR. The owner stated upon its Application that all defects had
been repaired. On July 12, 1991 a DHCR inspection of the subject premises
revealed that, contrary to the owner's statement upon its Application, all
defects were not repaired. On September 18, 1991 the Administrator denied
the owner's Application, citing the finding of the DHCR inspection.
The Commissioner is therefore of the opinion that as the defects
originally complained of by the tenants during October 1989 had not been
fully repaired by July 1991 (any intermediate repair and breakdown
indicating unworkmanlike repairs), the Administrator's finding that the
owner had failed to repair all reductions in service cited by the
Administrator in the order herein under review was correct.
This Order is without prejudice to the owner's right to file another
application for restoration of rent when the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Tenant Protection
Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is denied and that the
Administrator's order be and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA