EL 510406-RT
                                  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.:             
                                                  EL 510406-RT
                 DOROTHY NIXON &                  
                 NOEL  WILSON,                       RENT   ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      DL 530026-OR
          ----------------------------------x     


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   
                                          

          On January 15, 1990, the above-named petitioner-tenants  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of  the  Rent
          Administrator issued December  11,  1990.   The  order  concerned
          housing accommodations known as Apartment 3-B, located at  579-87
          Ft. Washington Avenue, New York,  New  York.   The  Administrator
          ordered the legal regulated rent restored effective  February  1,
          1990.

          The Commissioner has reviewed the record and has  carefully  con-
          sidered that portion of the record relevant to the issues  raised
          by this administrative appeal.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on December 5, 1989 by filing 
          an application to restore rent.  On September 6, 1989 t e  Admin-
          istrator had ordered a building-wide rent reduction  for  failure
          to maintain services (Docket No. CL 530003-B).

          The owner's application was sent to all tenants in  the  building
          on January 24, 1990.

          Petitioners filed an answer to  the  application  in  which  they
          asserted that services had  still  not  been  restored  and  that
          additional violations existed.

          The Administrator ordered an inspection of  the  premises.   That
          inspection was conducted  on  June  22,  1990  and  revealed  the
          following:

               1.   Gate leading  into  laundry  room/garbage  area
                    is self-closing  and  self-locking.   The  gate
                    can be opened from inside.

               2.   There is adequate amount of garba e  cans  pro-
                    vided and cans get provided with  lids.   There
                    is  no  evidence  of  any  garbage  in   public
                    areas.

               3.   Vestibule  doors  at  both  building  entrances







          EL 510406-RT
               are kept locked.  Further, in  accordance  with
                    the Multiple Dwelling  Law  where  an  entrance
                    door leading from a vestibule to t e  main  en-
                    trance hall or lobby is equipped  with  one  or
                    more automatic  self-closing  and  self-locking
                    doors, the entrance door  from  the  street  to
                    the vestibule need not be equipp d  with  auto-
                    matic self-closing and self-locking doors.

          The Administrator issued an order on April 1, 1990  granting  the
          application and  restoring  the  rent  for  all  rent  controlled
          apartments by $11.00 per month effective September 1,  1990.   On
          December 11, 1990 an Amended Order was  issued  which  added  the
          petitioner's apartment (3-B) to the apartments  effected  by  the
          prior order and restoring the rent to the level in  effect  prior
          to the rent reduction plus subseque t  lawful  increases,  effec-
          tive February 1, 1990.

          Petitioners make two arguments in urging reversal of the Admin-
          istrative  order.   First,  they  claim  that  the  Administrator
          incorrectly chose the restoration date.  They point out that  the
          February 1, 1990 effective date was only 8 days after  the  owner
          commenced the restoration proceeding. The petitioners argue  that
          the initial September  1,  1990  restoration  was  correct.   The
          tenants also argue that services were not, in fact,  restored  as
          the Administrator found.  The  owner  filed  a  response  to  the
          petition wherein he affirmed that all repairs had been  completed
          by October 1989.

          After careful review of the evidence in the recor ,  the  Commis-
          sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          The Administrator's choice of a February 1, 1990  effective  date
          for restoration comported with DHCR policy.  When  a  restoration
          of rent application, in a services reduction case, is granted the 
          effective date for rent stabilized apartments if the first day of 
          the month succeeding the date the tenants were served with notice 
          of the application and given an opportunity to respond.  In  this
          proceeding this petitioner was served n January  24,  1990.   The
          February 1, 1990 date was therefore correct.


          The Commissioner notes that the first orders issued in August  2,
          1990 restored the rent by $11.00 per  month  for  rent-controlled
          tenants only and in accordance with the requirements of the  Rent
          and Eviction Regulatio s  applicable  to  rent-controlled  apart-
          ments, such orders must be prospective.  The effective  date  for
          rent controlled tenants was properly established as September  1,
          1990 while, as noted above, the effective date of the restoration 
          for rent stabilized tenants is February 1, 1990.

          Petitioner's statements regarding the failure to restore services 
          is contradicted by the physical inspection of t e  premises  con-
          ducted by DHCR on June 2, 1990.  That inspection  is  dispositive
          of the issue particularly  in  the  absence  of  any  conflicting
          evidence.  The tenants may file a  new  application  for  a  rent
          reduction if the facts so warrant.








          EL 510406-RT

          THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it is

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