OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF
                FRANK PRESTIA,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.:    DI230191OM 


          On August 14, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July 
          24, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 6914 Ridge Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY, various 

          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.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on March 8, 1989, by filing a 
          major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase application 
          predicated on the installation of a boiler at a total cost of 

          A review of Division records disclosed that on August 18, 1989, the 
          Rent Administrator issued a rent reduction of $5.00 per room, per 
          month for rent controlled tenants and an order for restoration of 
          services for all rent stabilized tenants, under Docket No. 

          On September 21, 1989, the owner filed a PAR regarding the above 
          rent reduction and direction to restore service orders, under 
          Docket No. DI230355-RO, which was denied on September 23, 1991.

          On July 24, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, denying the owner's MCI rent increase application due 
          to the outstanding rent reduction order in effect under Docket No. 



          In this PAR, the owner requests reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and alleges, in substance, that only the 
          tenants in rent controlled apartments were granted a rent reduction 
          order, therefore the rent reduction does not apply to the building 
          as a whole and the orders of rent reduction and direction of 
          restoration of services are not final since a decision on the PAR 
          filed relative to them has not yet been determined.

          In response to the owner's petition, several tenants filed answers 
          contending, in substance, that there has been no heat in the 
          building on numerous occasions since the installation of the 
          boiler, no hot water in the building on numerous occasions since 
          the installation of the boiler, the tenants did not provide express 
          consent for the improvements, the halls and staircases are filthy, 
          the building is infested with roaches and bugs, the garbage area is 
          inadequate and unclean, the building entrance and sidewalk in front 
          of the building are filthy, the building steps are cracked, the 
          intercom system is unreliable and the outside of the building is 
          covered with graffiti and needs to be painted.

          After a careful consideration of the entire record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.

          Contrary to the owner's statement, the owner's PAR, Docket No. 
          DI230355-RO concerning the orders issued under Docket No. CK230026- 
          B, has been decided and was denied in an order and opinion of the 
          Commissioner issued on September 23, 1991.  Moreover, the 
          Commissioner notes that a rent reduction order under Docket No. 
          AK230007-B, issued on June 22, 1987, remains outstanding against 
          the subject premises.

          It is the established position of the DHCR, as reflected in Policy 
          Statement 90-8, that where there is an order in effect determining 
          a failure to maintain a building-wide service which resulted in a 
          rent reduction, such order will constitute a bar to obtaining an 
          MCI rent increase.  A subsequent restoration of rent based on a 
          finding of service restoration will result in the prospective 
          elimination of this sanction.  The Commissioner notes that no rent 
          restoration has been applied for by the owner. 

          This bar applies to the entire building, regardless of whether or 
          not all tenants were granted the reduction, as long as the 
          reduction was based on a failure to maintain services of a 
          building-wide nature, as it was in the present case.

          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 order of the Rent Administrator 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