EJ 530225 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    ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO. EJ 530225-RO  
                                                
            B. ENGLANDER,                        DRO DOCKET NO. DC 530082-B
            
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                       IN PART

          On August 24, 1990, the above-named petitioner  filed  a  Petition
          for Administrative Review against an order  issued  on  August  8,
          1990 by the  Rent  Administrator  of  the  Gertz  Plaza,  Jamaica,
          District Rent Office, concerning the housing accommodations  known
          as 41 Bennett Avenue, New York, N.Y.

          The issue herein is whether  there  was  a  decrease  in  services
          warranting reduction of the legal regulated rent.

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

          On January 27, 1986 the tenants filed a complaint of  decrease  in
          services, alleging  among  other  conditions  complained  of,  the
          following:   lack  of  garbage  collection,  defective   intercom,
          leaking roof and peeling paint on hall ceiling, basement doors not 
          locked allowing entrance to outsiders, superintendent not  present
          on weekends, lack of  fencing  around  yard,  rodent  infestation,
          deteriorated cement  in  courtyard  and  entrance,  and  defective
          elevator floor indicator light.

          On November 2, 1989, December 5,  1989,  December  20,  1989,  and
          January 6,  1990  physical  inspections  of  the  subject  housing
          accommodation were conducted by the DHCR.  The inspector's  report
          confirmed existence of some of the complained of conditions.

          On August 8, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued an order based on 
          the  report  of  the  physical  inspection,  reducing  the   legal
          regulated rent for the rent-stabilized tenants by  the  percentage
          of the most recent guidelines adjustment for the  tenants'  leases
          which commenced before May 1, 1989,  the  effective  date  of  the
          order, and, by the amou t  of  $20.00  per  month  for  the  rent-
          controlled  tenants,  effective  the  first  rent   payment   date
          following the date of the order, and directing the owner to refund 
          to the tenants all amounts collected  in  excess  of  the  reduced
          rents since the above mentioned effective dates.

          In its petition, the owner contends that the conditions for  which
          the rent reduction was granted, specifically garbage accumulation, 
          peeling paint in stairways and cement constituting a trip  hazard,







          EJ 530225 RO

          were not the conditions alleged in the tenants' complaint.   Also,
          the tenants were already  under  a  rent  reduction  for  unlocked
          basement doors and should not have received a second reduction  in
          the order appealed herein for  the  same  item.   Petitioner  also
          states that the multiple inspections within a close period of time 
          yield conflicting findings specifically as  to  risen  cement  and
          elevator indicator lights, and are therefore unreliable, and  that
          for this reason as well as the fact  that  the  order  was  issued
          seven months after the last  inspection  and  the  owner  was  not
          served with copies of the various inspection reports, owner's  due
          process rights have been violated.

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

          The Commissioner rejects  as  wholly  without  merit  the  owner's
          assertions that the conditions for which the  rent  reduction  was
          granted were not the conditions alleged in the tenants' complaint. 
          The  findings  of  the  Division's  inspector  correlate  to   the
          complained of conditions to such a degree that they  can  only  be
          seen as identical  from  another  order  of  viewing.   (E.g.  the
          complaint was that garbage collection was not being  provided  and
          the finding was termed garbage accumulation.)  Petitioner has  not
          been penalized for conditions which were not alleged and  has  not
          been denied due process in this regard.

          The Commissioner likewise rejects petitioner's  argument  that  it
          should have been provided with copies of  the  inspection  reports
          and that lack of opportunity to address the  inspector's  findings
          or the delay between the last inspection and the issuance  of  the
          order constituted a lack of due process.  The owner was clearly on 
          notice of the conditions complained of when it was  provided  with
          the tenant's complaint.  Additionally, the  Division's  procedures
          do not require the Administrator  to  apprise  the  owner  of  the
          results of an inspection.  As to the conflicts between inspector's 
          findings, the Commissioner finds that the inspection reports  were
          prepared  by  Division  employees  who  are  not  parties  to  the
          proceeding and not adversaries of the owner, were properly  placed
          in the record for consideration  by  the  Administrator.   On  the
          basis of the entire evidence of record, the Administrator properly 
          determined that the conditions constituted a reduction in services 
          warranting a rent reduction.

          The petitioner is correct to the extent that as a  rent  reduction
          existed under Docket No. AA-500083-B based on a finding that the 







          EJ 530225 RO

          basement doors were not secured, the tenants could not collect two 
          concurrent rent reductions under separate orders  issued  for  the
          same  item.   Consequently,  the  Administrator's   order   herein
          appealed in modified to the extent that the rent reduction in  the
          amount of $5.00 applicable  to  the  rent-controlled  tenants  for
          unsecured basement door, is revoked as  duplicative  of  the  rent
          reduction in the same amount granted under the previous order.

          The Commissioner  notes  that  the  owner  has  already  filed  an
          application for restoration of the rents which has been granted by 
          this Division.

          THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of   the   Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be, and  the
          same hereby is, granted in part, and, that the order of  the  Rent
          Administrator be modified in accordance herewith.

          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