FF 110117-RO, et al.
                                  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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   FF  110117-RO;
                                                  FF 110118-RO;  FF 110119-RO;
                                                  FF 110123-RO;  FF 110124-RO;
                                                  FF 110125-RO;  FF 110126-RO;
                                                  FF 110127-RO;  FF 110128-RO;
                                                  FF 110129-RO;  FF 110130-RO;
                  JAIME ASSOCIATES,               FF 110131-RO;  FF 110132-RO;
                                                  FF 110133-RO;  FF 110134-RO;
                                                  FF 110135-RO;  FF 110136-RO;
                                                  FF 110137-RO;  FF 110138-RO;
                                                  FF 110139-RO;  FF 110140-RO;
                               
                                                  RENT          ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS. :
                                                  ED 110941-S ;  ED 110944-S ;
                                                  ED 110948-S ;  ED 110949-S ;
                                                  ED 110950-S ;  ED 110951-S ;
                                                  ED 110954-S ;  ED 110955-S ;
                                                  ED 110957-S ;  ED 110960-S  ;
                                                  ED 110961-S ;  ED 110963-S  ;
                                                  ED 110964-S ;  ED 110965-S ;
                                                  ED 110968-S ;  ED 110970-S ;
                                                  ED 110971-S ;  ED 110972-S ;
                                                  ED 110973-S ;  ED 110974-S ;
                                                  EE 110536-S 
                                  PETITIONER                  
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                          

          The Commissioner has consolidated these  cases  as  they  involve
          common questions of law and fact.

          The above  named  petitioner-owner  filed  timely  petitions  for
          administrative review against orders of  the  Rent  Administrator
          which  ordered  rent  reductions  based  on  decreased  apartment
          services.  The orders concerned Apartments 6-M, 4-K, 6-C, 5-S, 



          5-R, 2-A, 3-B, 4-E, 3-F, 3-L, 2-N, 3-P, 5-P, 1-R, 1-E, 4-D,  1-A,
          4-R, 3-H and 3-A  located  at  102-30  Queens  Boulevard,  Forest
          Hills, New York.

          Each of the 21 tenants  commenced  these  proceedings  by  filing
          identical complaints alleging decreased apartment services.  Each 
          tenant complained that the installation of new windows was defec 
          tive.  Specifically the tenants complained that:







          FF 110117-RO, et al.

               1.   Wood window trims were never painted.
               2.   Gouges in existing window bucks not sanded 
                    and painted.
               3.   Window caulking not properly done.
               4.   Windows improperly balanced.
               5.   Window bottoms fly up and out of channel when 
                    open inward.
               6.   Springs in channel pop-off need special tool 
                    to resecure.
               7.   Tilt latches not working.
               8.   Windows slide open by themselves after clos-
                    ure.

          The tenants alleged that the  owner  has  been  notified  of  the
          defective conditions but has not attempted to recti y  the  prob-
          lems.  The tenants requested a rent reduction.

          Petitioner responded to each complaint alleging that  the  build-
          ing-wide window installation was completed in August  1989.   The
          contractors  were  called  back  for   adjustments.    Petitioner
          claimed that adjustments were made on May 19 and 21,  1990.   The
          owner submitted what he claimed was a statement  signed  by  each
          tenant, dated  July  23,  1990,  stating  that  the  windows  are
          functioning properly.

          The Administrator ordered a physical inspecti n  of  each  apart-
          ment.  Said inspections were conducted.  The inspectors found:

               1.   Windows in need of caulking,
               2.   window trims in need of painting,
               3.   defective sashes, 
               4.   windows failing to close properly and 
               5.   defective window latches and locks. 

          The orders appealed from were duly issued granting the  requested
          rent reduction.  



          The owner filed identical petitions for review of each order  al-
          leging that:

               1.   The window problems have been corrected to 
                    the tenant's satisfaction as indicated by the 
                    tenant's signed statement of July 1990.

               2.   Contrary to DHCR's procedures, the owner was 
                    not given 21 days to correct the inspector's 
                    findings, nor was a copy of the inspector's 
                    report supplied, prior to the Administrator 
                    denying the reduction.

               3.   Adjustment of windows, molding, painting, 
                    caulking, and smoothing are not services re- 
                    ductions.

          Petitioner's contention that the windows have  been  repaired  to







          FF 110117-RO, et al.
          the tenants' satisfaction is  rebutted  by  the  results  of  the
          twenty one physical inspections conducted by an agency  employee.
          The purported tenants' statements relied on by the owner  consist
          of a page in a ledger book with tenant names and signatures under 
          a column heading stating "windows are functioning properly."  The 
          upper right hand corner bears the date July 23, 1990.  It  cannot
          be determined from this document that the  tenants  whose  signa-
          tures appear in the column knew  what  they  were  signing,  that
          they actually signed it on July 23, 1990, and that they  intended
          to withdraw  their  complaints.   Accordingly,  the  Commissioner
          finds that the purported tenants' statements  have  no  probative
          value, especially when contradicted by  the  physical  inspection
          and when unaccompanied by any other evidence showing when and  by
          whom repairs were made.  

          DHCR records indicate that petitioner was  properly  served  with
          copies of the tenants' complaints.  This service  in  July  1990,
          afforded the owner the notice and opportunity to correct the win 
          dow problems that were the subject of the complaints but when the 
          physical inspection took place in April 1990, the repairs had not 
          been made.  Due process does not require that the owner be served 
          with a copy of the inspection report that confirms the  existence
          of the conditions contained in the complaint.  The  tenants  were
          entitled to the installation of  fully  functional  and  properly
          installed windows.  The Administrator correctly  determined  that
          the deficiencies noted by the inspectors were services  decreases
          for which reductions in rent were warranted.





          This order is without prejudice to the owner's right to file  for
          restoration of the rent after all the necessary repairs have been 
          completed.  The owner is advised that the inclusion  of  restora-
          ation applications with the petitions for  administrative  review
          does not constitute a proper filing. 


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

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied 
          and that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same  hereby
          are, 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