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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EJ 710127-RO
                 THE BECHTOLDT CORP.,             RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      EG 710001-OR


          On October 8, 1990  the  above  named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of  the  Rent
          Administrator, 50 Clinton  Street,  Hempstead,  New  York  issued
          September 5, 1990.  The order concerned  housing  accommodations,
          known as 100 Jerusalem Avenue, Hempstead, New York.   The  Admin-
          istrator denied petitioner's application for rent restoration.

          The Administrator has reviewed  the  record  and  carefully  con-
          sidered that portion  relevant  to  the  issues  raised  by  this

          The owner commenced this proceeding on June 25, 1990, by filing a 
          rent restoration application.   In  that  application  petitioner
          stated that the east elevator and intercoms, which were the basis 
          of the tenants' original complaints, were repaired.  In Orders DL 
          710012-B and EC 710039-RP the Administrator had ordered a  build-
          ing-wide rent reduction based on the following violations:

                    1.   East and West elevator not working.
                    2.   Defective intercom system.
                    3.   Vestibule door lock (part of intercom 
                         system) broken.

          Two tenants answered the owner's  application.   In  that  answer
          both tenants stated that the east and west elevators were out  of
          order, that the west elevator has been broken for  2  years,  and
          that the intercom system was working only for some tenants.

          The owner replied on August 28, 1990, that a  new  control  board
          has been installed in the west elevator (the prior  board  having
          been destroyed by vandals), and an extra maintenance man has been 
          assigned to complete repairs.

          The Administrator ordered  an  inspection  which  took  place  on
          August 15, 1990.  The inspector found that the west elevator  was
          not operational but the east elevator was.  Based on the  inspec-
          tor's report and the  owner's  August  28,  1990  statement  that

          repairs have not been completed, the  Administrator  duly  denied
          the application with leave  to  refile  when  all  services  were

          On appeal,  the  petitioner  argues  that  the  order  should  be
          reversed because the inspector failed to inspect the other  items
          for which the rent was reduced.  The owner also argues  that  the
          Administrator  misinterpreted  its  statement  regarding  ongoing
          repairs which was intended to satisfy the DHCR  Enforcement  Unit
          that  management  is  actively  seeking  to  resolve   individual
          complaints.  The owner asserts  that  the  rent  reduction  order
          failed to specify what was wrong with the west  elevator  but  it
          has been overhauled at a cost of $12,000 as shown on  a  contract
          submitted with the restoration application.  Finally,  the  owner
          contends that even if the west elevator was not  working  on  the
          day of the inspection, the rent should  have  been  restored  for
          those tenants who live on the first floor or in the east wing  of
          the building.  The owner adds  that  the  order  was  erroneously
          issued before the owner's time to respond to the tenant's answers 
          had expired.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  the  petition  should  be

          In order for a rent restoration application  to  be  granted,  it
          must be established that all conditions for which  the  rent  was
          reduced have been restored.  In the instant  case,  the  physical
          inspection revealed that the west elevator had not been  repaired
          and this alone is sufficient to warrant  denial  of  the  owner's
          restoration application.  The failure to inspect the intercom and 
          vestibule door lock is immaterial since  the  west  elevator  was
          found by the inspector to be inoperative.

          The owner has not established that  the  necessary  repairs  were
          made.  Although reference is  made  to  a  $12,000  contract  for
          repairs to the west elevator, such contract is not in the record. 

          The record does contain evidence of repairs to the east  elevator
          and a letter from the elevator repair  company  dated  April  19,
          1990 stating that the parts necessary to repair the west elevator 
          would not be available  for  about  six  weeks.   In  any  event,
          regardless of the sum expended,  the  inspector  found  that  the
          west elevator was not working and it is this finding, rather than 
          the owner's statements regarding ongoing repairs  that  justified
          denial of the restoration application.  

          The owner was not prejudiced by the issuance of the order  before
          the time to respond to the tenant's answers had expired since the 
          owner's response was received  and  considered  by  the  Adminis-

          The Commissioner notes that the petitioner has filed  a  Petition
          for Administrative Review seeking revocation or  modification  of
          the rent reduction order (Docket No. ED  730280-RO).   A  Commis-
          sioner's order and opinion was issued in that proceeding granting 
          the owner's petition in part  by  modifying  the  Administrator's

          order to the effect of removing the east elevator as a basis  for
          the service reduction.  The  parties  are  hereby  notified  that
          repair of the east elevator need not be a subject for any  future
          restoration application but as the  Commissioner  noted  in  that
          order and  opinion  all  tenants  in  the  subject  building  are
          entitled to the services of two  functioning  elevators  and  the
          modification of the order to delete reference  o  the  east  ele-
          vator does not warrant revocation of the rent reduction for those 
          tenants who live on the first floor or in  the  east  wing.   Any
          complaints regarding that elevator may be the subject  of  a  new
          services complaint that the tenants may  file  if  the  facts  so

          The order denying restoration of the rent is affirmed.

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Emergency Tenant  Protection  Act  and
          Tenant Protection Regulations it is 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the Rent 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