Adm. Rev. Docket No.: EI-130026-RT
                                 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.: EI 130026-RT 
                                            :  
             NEME ALPERSTEIN,                  DRO DOCKET NO.: DI 130070-B  

                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        The   above   named   petitioner-tenant   filed   a   Petition   for
        Administrative Review on his own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of  other
        tenants appealing an order issued on  July  27,  1990  by  the  Rent
        Administrator of the Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York,  District  Rent
        Office, concerning the housing accommodation known  as  101-06  67th
        Drive, Forest Hills, New York, wherein  the  Administrator,  granted
        rent reductions based on a finding of  decreased  elevator  service,
        dismissed the tenants' other services complaints.  The  Commissioner
        initially rejected the  tenant's  petition  for  various  procedural
        reasons.   However,  by  an  order  dated  November  13,  1990,  the
        Commissioner reopened the PAR proceedings for further processing  as
        to the affirming tenant, in his individual capacity, but not  as  to
        his capacity as the alleged tenants' representative.

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

        The issue in these proceedings is whether the Administrator's  order
        was correct.

        The tenants commenced the proceedings, by filing a  joint  complaint
        complaining of decreases in  building-wide  services.   The  tenants
        asserted that the owner reduced full-time porter service,  that  the
        elevator was chronically out  of  order;  that  hot  water  was  not
        provided for several days in August 1989; and that  a  new  intercom
        did not work properly, in that two-way  conversation  was  inaudible
        and that there was no distinction between the entrance door and  the
        apartment door buzzer tones, as  there  had  been  in  the  previous
        system.

        The owner responded that the subject of porter service  was  decided
        under Docket No. AK 130001-B, which determined that there  had  been
        no diminution of service and that, in fact, a  second  employee  was
        available 16 hours per week; that the intercom system  was  in  good
        working order; and that the elevator and hot water problems had been 
        addressed.







        Adm. Rev. Docket No.: EI-130026-RT
        An inspection was conducted on July 10, 1990, by  a  member  of  the
        Division's inspection staff.  The inspector reported  that  hallways
        and stairwells were adequately maintained at the time of inspection, 
        and that the intercom was audible at both ends, but that the tenants 
        could not distinguish the vestibule door  tone  from  the  apartment
        door tone.  The inspector reported however, that  the  elevator  was
        not operating properly in that the elevator cab door  opened  before
        the elevator came to a stop on various floors, and that the elevator 
        did not stop level on each floor.

        On July 27, 1990, the Administrator issued  an  order  reducing  the
        tenants' rent based on a  finding  that  elevator  did  not  operate
        properly.  However, the Administrator also determined that full time 
        porter is not a required service as porter service was  provided  as
        needed; that public halls and stairway were clean  at  the  time  of
        inspection; and that the intercom was audible at both ends.

        The petitioner requests the Administrator to modify the order  below
        to reflect that the  loss  of  a  full  time  porter  constituted  a
        reduction in services, and that the fact  the  new  intercom  system
        does not have a two tone system to  distinguish  the  entrance  door
        signal from the apartment door signal,  similar  to  the  system  it
        replaced.  The petitioner points out a prior determination under PAR 
        Docket Number BE-110048-RO  determined  that  building  maintenance,
        then provided  by  two  full  time  maintenance  personnel  and  one
        superintendent, and an intercom system, were required services.

        After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
        the petition should be denied.

        The Commissioner finds that owner are not required to specify or  to
        maintain the  identical  number  of  maintenance  personnel  at  the
        premises provided on the service base date or registration  date  so
        long as the required  services  are  adequate.   The  record  herein
        reflects that the  owner  provides  adequate  porter  service.   The
        Commissioner also note that  the  PAR  determination  cited  by  the
        petitioner found maintenance to be the required service, and  listed
        the number of maintenance personnel only parenthetically.

        The Commissioner further finds that the fact  the  present  intercom
        system differed from the old system only to the extent the  entrance
        door buzzer tone could be  distinguished  from  the  apartment  door
        buzzer tone did not constitute a  reduction  of  service  since  the
        intercom system was found to be operating properly both at  entrance
        door and at the apartment doors.

        THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the   provisions   of   the   Rent
        Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 403 of the  Law  and  1983,  and
        Chapter 403 of the Law of 1983, and Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984, 
        it is








        Adm. Rev. Docket No.: EI-130026-RT


        ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
        denied.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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