EJ 130105 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 S.J.R. No. 5656
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                            DOCKET NO.: EJ 130105 RO
                                                           
               Jocara Realty Company,          DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
                                               DOCKET NO.: DG 130092-B
           
                                   PETITIONER               
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On October 16, 1990 the  above  named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on
          September 21, 1990 by the Rent Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall
          Street, Jamaica, New York concerning housing accommodations known 
          as  82-15   Britton   Avenue,   Elmhurst,   New   York,   various
          accommodations.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner-owner filed a petition in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the  Civil  Practice  Law
          and Rules requesting that the "deemed denial" of the petitioner's 
          administrative appeal be annulled.  

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on June 1,  1989  by  various  rent
          controlled and rent stabilized tenants of  the  subject  premises
          filing a  complaint  of  a  decrease  in  building-wide  services
          alleging, among other things, that the  elevators  did  not  work
          properly.

          In Docket No. DG 130092-B, the Rent Administrator determined that 
          the  owner  was  not  maintaining  services,  reduced  the   rent
          controlled tenants' rents by $4.00 per month,  effective  on  the
          first rent payment date following the issue date  of  the  order,
          and  reduced  the  rent  stabilized  tenants'   rents   effective
          September 1, 1989 to the  level  in  effect  prior  to  the  last
          guideline increase which  commenced  before  September  1,  1989.
          This order was based on two physical inspections of  the  subject
          premises conducted on March 26 and July 31, 1990 which  revealed,
          among other things, that one of the elevators did not stop  level
          on all floors and the cab bounced and swayed at all floors.  

          In this petition, the owner asserts, among other things, that  on
          September 21, 1990, the same date the order appealed  herein  was
          issued, the Rent Administrator issued an order under Docket  Nos.
          DL 130080-OR, AF 130034-B, CI 130163-B and BK 110034-OR restoring 
          the rents for the subject building based on a physical inspection 
          of the subject  premises  conducted  on  August  13,  1990  which
          revealed, among other things, that the elevators  were  operating






          EJ 130105 RO
          and leveling properly and there was no evidence  that  they  were
          hazardous  and  dangerous.   The  owner  asserts  that  the  rent
          reduction should be revoked.

          In response, the tenants assert, among  other  things,  that  the
          elevators are not functioning properly and are  unsafe  and  that
          the rent reduction should not be revoked based on the results  of
          the August 13, 1990 inspection because said inspection related to 
          a separate services complaint.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          granted.

          Section 2205.1 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations  requires  an
          owner to maintain services.  Sections 2202.16 of the  Regulations
          provides, in pertinent part, that if the owner fails to  maintain
          essential services, the Rent Administrator may order  a  decrease
          in maximum rent in an amount  which  the  Administrator,  in  his
          discretion, may determine.

          Section 2525.2 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires  an  owner
          to maintain  services,  defined  in  Section  2520.6  to  include
          repairs and maintenance.  Section 2523.4  of  the  Code  provides
          that a tenant may apply to the Division for a reduction  of  rent
          and the Division shall so reduce the rent based on a finding that 
          the owner has failed to maintain services.

          In this case the evidence of record reveals that  the  owner  was
          maintaining  services.   Specifically,  the  evidence  of  record
          indicates that as of August 13, 1990, prior to  the  issuance  of
          the herein appealed order, all of the items complained of in  the
          original service complaint (filed under Docket No. DG  130092-B),
          including  the   elevator   service,   were   being   maintained.
          Notwithstanding the  fact  that  the  August  13,  1990  physical
          inspection was conducted in connection with a  separate  services
          complaint, the Commissioner is obliged  to  take  notice  of  the
          results of said inspection which was  conducted  at  the  subject
          premises by a DHCR staff member.  Accordingly,  the  Commissioner
          finds that a rent reduction was not warranted.

          Any arrears owing to the owner as a result of this order  may  be
          paid by the tenants in twelve equal monthly installments.  Should 
          any tenant vacate the subject  building  such  arrears  shall  be
          payable immediately.

          This Order  and  Opinion  is  issued  without  prejudice  to  the
          tenants' rights to file a complaint of a decrease in services  if
          the facts so warrant.

          The Commissioner notes  that  the  owner  also  contends  in  the
          petition  that  a  rent  reduction  was  not  warranted  in  this
          proceeding because a rent reduction was already in effect for the 
          subject premises and  that  the  amount  of  the  rent  reduction
          imposed was not rationally related to the nature of the condition 
          cited.  In light of the fact  that  the  rent  reduction  imposed
          herein has been found to be unwarranted, the  Commissioner  finds
          that these contentions are moot.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  regulations






          EJ 130105 RO
          and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,  granted,
          and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby  is,
          revoked in its entirety.

          ISSUED:

           
                                                       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