Docket No.:  EJ 430069 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    SJR No. 5791
          APPEAL OF 
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EJ 430069-RO
             WEST END ASSOCIATES,              
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.: ZCK 430081-B

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 865 West End Avenue
                                PETITIONER       New York, N.Y. 10025
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
             ORDER AND DETERMINATION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
                      REVIEW UPON REOPENING AND RECONSIDERATION

          This  determination  is  issued  pursuant  to  the  Commissioner's
          determination dated June 7, 1991, granting the owner's request for 
          reconsideration and reopening of Administrative Review  Order  and
          Opinion EJ 430069-RO.

          The record reveals that the Rent Administrator issued an order  on
          September 13, 1990 granting the tenants rent reductions  based  on
          findings of an inspection conducted on March 27, 1990  that  found
          that several public area windows required repairs and maintenance. 
          Prior to the order, the owner had advised the  Administrator  that
          replacement of all windows had already commenced.  In support, the 
          owner submitted a copy of a contract with the window  installation
          contractor.

          On  appeal,  the  petitioner  acknowledges  that  the   contractor
          replaced windows in individual apartments only, going  on  out  of
          business before  completing  the  full  project.   The  petitioner
          asserts that he then had to locate a new contractor and to come up 
          with additional funds to pay for  the  completion  of  the  window
          replacement project.  That in the interim, in May 1990, subsequent 
          to the March 1, 1990 inspection, and prior to  the  September  13,
          1990 issuance of the order, all of  the  cracked  windows  in  the
          public areas were replaced, and those windows that "did  not  open
          without difficulty were, eased by the superintendent."  In support 
          the petitioner submitted copies of an invoice and cancelled checks 
          for replacement of cracked windows in public areas.   However,  no
          evidence was submitted, nor did  the  petitioner  aver  that  this
          material was submitted to the Administrator for consideration.

          Nonetheless, the PAR order initially denying the owner's  petition
          found "that the owner submitted no evidence  to  substantiate  the
          contention either while the  proceeding  was  pending  before  the
          Administrator or by attachment to the petition" and  affirmed  the
          Administrator's order.

          Based on irregularity in a vital matter, in that the  Commissioner
          failed to consider the owner's invoice and  cancelled  checks  for






          Docket No.:  EJ 430069 RO

          replacement of cracked windows in public areas, the PAR proceeding 
          has been reopened for further processing.

          The owner has also commenced a proceeding  in  the  Supreme  Court
          pursuant to Article  78  of  the  Civil  Practice  Law  and  Rules
          appealing the Commissioner's order.  The  matter  remains  pending
          before the Court.

          On reconsideration, the Commissioner finds that the  Administrator
          properly determined the complaint based on  the  record  presented
          below.  The entire record shows that the conditions still remained 
          almost two (2) years after the tenants commenced these proceedings 
          and more than three months  after  window  replacement  commenced.
          The Commissioner also concurs with the tenants  that  they  should
          not be penalized for the owner's delay in  replacing  windows  and
          delay possibly caused by  the  owner's  contractor  going  out  of
          business. 

          The Commissioner also rejects the petitioner's contention that  it
          was denied due process because it was not put  on  notice  of  the
          inspection and  the  inspection  results.   The  owner  was  fully
          informed of the allegation when it was served  with  the  tenants'
          complaint.  The DHCR is not required  to  forward  copies  of  the
          inspection reports.  Matter of Empress Manor Apartments  v.  DHCR,
          147 A.D.2d 642, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49 (2nd Dep't, 1989).

          The Commissioner further rejects the petitioners argument that the 
          defects in the windows on a few landings could not affect  all  of
          the apartments whose rents  were  reduced  in  the  fifteen  story
          building.   The  Commissioner  rejects  the  argument  that  stair
          landings do not service all apartments.  All tenants have the same 
          right to use well-maintained  and  safe  stairwell  windows.   The
          conditions reported constitute a building-wide reduction  service.

          The    Commissioner    similarly    rejects    the    petitioner's
          characterization of cracked window panes as de  minimus.   On  the
          contrary, the conditions constituted a severe hazard to the safety 
          of  tenants  and  passers-by  and  required  immediate  corrective
          action.  Moreover, the Courts have held  that  once  the  Division
          determines  that  a  diminution  of  services  has  occurred,  the
          Division must order rent reductions.  Hyde Park Gardens  v.  DHCR,
          140 A.D.2d 351, 527 N.Y.S.2d 841 (2d Dep't), aff'd., 73 NY2d  998,
          541 N.Y.S.2d 345 (Ct App 1989).

          The Commissioner notes rent controlled tenants may be entitled  to
          rent reductions even if they did not sign the complaint.  Rent 






          Docket No.:  EJ 430069 RO

          stabilized tenants may apply  to  the  Administrator  for  a  rent
          reduction based on failure to maintain required services.

          Division records further reveal that the Administrator granted the 
          owner's  application  to  restore  rents  pursuant   to   a   rent
          restoration order (EI 430000-OR) issued June 27, 1991.   In  light
          thereof, and  for  reasons  set  forth  above,  the  petition,  on
          reconsideration, must be denied.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and  the
          same  hereby  is,  denied,  and  that  the  order  of   the   Rent
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.

          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