DOCKET NO.: EK 630232 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. EK 630232 RO    
               
               3280 Realty Corporation            DISTRICT RENT 
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET    
                    
                                                  NO. ED 610139 OR 
                         
                              PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On November 26, 1990, the above-named owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on October 22, 1990, 
          by a District Rent Administrator concerning various housing 
          accommodations in the premises known as 3280 Rochambeau Avenue, 
          Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator denied the 
          owner's application for restoration of the 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 petition for review.

          This proceeding was commenced on April 23, 1990 by the 
          owner's filing an application to restore the subject apartments' 
          lawful rents, which had been reduced by an order issued on July 
          29, 1988 under Docket No. BK 610008-B.  (In Docket No. BK 610008- 
          B the Administrator found that the north side elevator was 
          inoperative).  In its application, the owner asserted that all 
          services had been restored, and it submitted a letter from an 
          elevator contractor indicating that it had performed work in 1987 
          and 1988 on the north passenger elevator.

          Several tenants submitted answers to the Administrator 
          which alleged that the north side elevator was still inoperative.  
          To these answers were attached a New York City Department of 
          Buildings inspection report, which stated that as of January 5, 
          1989, one elevator in the subject premises was out of service



          and had a number of violations and that the other elevator also 












          DOCKET NO.: EK 630232 RO

          had several violations.  They also attached an "Elevator Search" 
          report dated June 1, 1990 indicating that violations were still 
          pending.

          On September 21, 1990, an inspection of the subject premises 
          by the rent agency was conducted and the inspector noted in his 
          report that the north side elevator was out of order.

          On October 22, 1990, the District Rent Administrator issued 
          the order here under review which determined that the conditions 
          upon which the July 29, 1988 rent reduction was based, had not 
          been corrected, and therefore the owner's application was denied.

          The owner's petition states that attached to the original 
          rent restoration application was documentation establishing that 
          the north side elevator was repaired; that the owner has a 
          service contract with an independent contractor to repair the 
          elevator, and that the finding of the Administrator that "The 
          elevator is out of order" does not adequately explain the 
          rationale for denying its rent restoration application.  To its 
          petition the owner attaches two "Elevator Search" reports by the 
          New York City Department of Buildings dated August 7, 1990 and 
          October 16, 1990.

          A tenant filed an answer to the owner's petition, on 
          February 11, 1991, stating that the north side elevator is not 
          working.

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

          As several tenants stated in their answers to the owner's 
          application that the north side elevator was not working, and as 
          it was noted in the rent agency's inspector's report that this 
          elevator was out of order, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator properly denied the owner's rent restoration 
          application.

          The Commissioner notes that the Administrator's order which 
          found a service defect, and reduced the complaining tenants' 
          rent, under Docket No. BK 610008-B, stated that "the north side 
          elevator is inoperative."  As the owner does not allege that it 
          never received the aforementioned order, the Commissioner finds 
          that it should have been obvious to the owner that the elevator 
          that was mentioned in the order under review was the north side 
          elevator.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that



          the Administrator's order does not need further explanation as 
          to why the owner's rent restoration application was denied i.e., 
          "the elevator is out of order" sufficiently explains the 






          DOCKET NO.: EK 630232 RO

          Administrator's finding.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the documentation 
          attached to the owner's application does not establish that the 
          service defect was repaired.  As to the list of tenants who 
          alleged that they were "satisfied with the elevator service since 
          the north side elevator was repaired," the Commissioner notes 
          that not all of the subject tenants signed that list; that the 
          list was not dated, and even if some tenants were "satisfied," 
          this is not a sufficient basis to find that all services have 
          been properly restored.  Also, subsequent to the filing of the 
          owner's application, several tenants submitted answers which 
          alleged that the north side elevator was still out of order.  As 
          to the New York City Department of Buildings inspection report, 
          dated April 26, 1988, which dismissed the violations concerning 
          the elevator, the Commissioner notes that this inspection pre- 
          dated the original Administrator's order (Docket No. BK 610008- 
          B), and that it is a impermissible collateral attack on the 
          Administrator's order that found a reduction of services.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that the individual who inspected, and 
          signed the aforementioned inspection report, Paul Ratcliffe, was 
          also the general manager of the independent contractor hired by 
          the owner to allegedly repair the elevators.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's allegation, in its 
          petition, that it has an independent contractor "to service the 
          elevator on a 24 hour per day, 365 days per year basis" does not 
          prove that the elevator actually is working.

          As to the New York City Department of Buildings' "Elevator 
          Search" reports which are attached to the petition, the 
          Commissioner notes that they are not certified copies, but are 
          mere photocopies.  The Commissioner further notes that the report 
          dated August 7, 1990, did not include the 1990, and 1991 elevator 
          inspection, and the October 16, 1990 "Elevator Search" report did 
          not include inspections after 1987.  

          The Commissioner further notes that even if these reports 
          were of probative value, they do not show that the north side 
          elevator was working at the time D.H.C.R. conducted its own 
          inspection of it.  In addition, attached to the tenant's answer 
          to the owner's petition is an "Elevator search" report showing 
          that as of September 13, 1989 building violations still existed 
          in the  subject premises' elevators.




          The Commissioner also notes that the "Elevator Search" 
          reports which are attached to the petition are not certified, but 
          are mere photocopies.













          DOCKET NO.: EK 630232 RO

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order 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