DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA

                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X   ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     DOCKET NO.: EH230245RO
          APPEAL OF
                    ZEIGELMAN ORGANIZATION
                 C/O ROSENBERG & ESTIS, P.C.
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                               PETITIONER         DOCKET NO.: DK230227OM 
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 28, 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 101 Lincoln Road, Brooklyn, NY, various 
          apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for a rent increase which was based on the installation 
          of various major capital improvements (MCIs), because of an 
          outstanding rent reduction order.

          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 the instant proceeding by initially filing an 
          application for a rent increase based on the installation of an 
          intercom system, roof, pointing and waterproofing, asbestos removal 
          and pipe re-insulation at a total cost of $137,240.00.

          On July 24, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that a building-wide rent reduction order 
          under Docket No. CG230048B, issued on April 20, 1989, is still in 
          effect.

          In this PAR, the owner requests reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order and contends, in substance, that all of the 
          services that the owner previously failed to maintain have been 
          restored and the owner's MCI application should not be denied based 
          solely on the owner's failure to complete the ministerial act of 
          filing a rent restoration application.

          In response to the petition, several tenants filed answers, 
          contending, in substance, that the new intercom system is 
          unnecessary as the old one was only five years old, the new 
          intercom system doesn't work, there are still leaks from the roof 
          and around the windows, the windows don't seal properly, the 












          ADMIN. REVIEW DOCKET NO. EH230245RO

          entrance doors need to be repaired and the elevators are often out 
          of service.

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

          A review of Division records discloses that the order of rent 
          reduction, based on a finding that there was a decrease in service 
          of a building-wide nature is still outstanding on the subject 
          property.  No application for rent restoration with respect to said 
          docket has been filed by the owner with the DHCR and there has been 
          no finding by the Division that the owner restored the services 
          which formed the basis for the order issued under Docket No. 
          CG230048B, including any finding that the defective front entrance 
          door lock has been effectively repaired.

          As codified in Sections 2523.4(a) and 2522.4(a)(13) of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code and further amplified in Policy Statement 90-8, 
          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 an owner applying for or collecting 
          any rent increases.  A subsequent restoration of rent based upon a 
          finding of service restoration will result in the prospective 
          elimination of this sanction.  

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          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. 



          ISSUED:




                                                                          
                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                                  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