STATE OF NEW YORK
                          OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                   GERTZ PLAZA
                             92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                             JAMAICA, NEW YORK  11433

     APPEAL OF                                 DOCKET NO. EF810181RO
                                           :   DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR'S
     BARRY AKRONGOLD                       :     

                            PETITIONER     :


     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 
     White Plains.

     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 
     individual apartment."

     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
                                                     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