STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
215 WEST 121ST STREET CORP.
By HARRY GREENBAUM, ESQ. RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONERS FA 520003-AV
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 31, 1991, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on May 1, 1991, by a
Rent Administrator concerning various housing accommodations in
the premises known as 217 West 121st Street, New York, New York,
wherein rents were reduced to one dollar monthly, building-wide,
based on a finding that the building was unfit for human habita-
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.
On February 12, 1991 the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) commenced this proceeding per its Director of
Processing, Services Section, by service on the owner of a Notice
of Commencement of Proceedings which stated:
Attached hereto is a copy of a Vacate Notice issued by
the Office of Code Enforcement of the New York City
Department of Housing Preservation and Development
requiring that the above housi g accommodation be va-
cated by January 4, 1991, based upon the facts set
forth in such Vacate Notice.
This agency, pursuant to Section 2202.22 and 2202.17 of
the Rent And Eviction Regulations, proposes to
establish the maximum rent(s) for the unit(s) in the
housing accommodation specified above, at $1.00 per
month per unit.
The landlord is hereby afforded n opportunity to op-
pose this action by filing an answer thereto, on the
attached answer forms, within twenty days from the date
appearing below. Such answer must contain evidence
that the Vacate Order has been rescinded or revoked by
the Office of Code Enforcement. Failure to file such
answer will result in the reduction of the rent(s) for
the unit(s) specified above.
Attached to the Notice was a copy of the Vacate Order which
stated inter alia,
WHEREAS it has been certified to the Division of Code
Enforcement by an Office or Inspector thereof, that the
said dwelling is dangerous to life, and detrimental to
the health and safety of the occupants and others and
is unfit for human habitation because of the following
Public hall stairs a d stringer are in imi-
nent danger of collapse in that they are
pulling away from the supporting walls.
Public hall stairs and landing platforms are
being supported by 4x4 wood posts that are
wedged under the stringer and supported on
stair treads. There are missing and defec-
tive stair treads throughout the public
hall. Portio s of the public hall exten-
sions have defective wood floors, and are
without lights. The above listed conditions
pose an extreme hazard and present defective
The record contains no evidence of the owner's having interposed
any answer in the proceeding and contains the administrator's
notation of March 22, 1991 - "To date received no response from
On May 1, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review establishing the rents at one dollar monthly
building-wide as of January 4, 1991.
The order was issued without prejudice to the owner's right to
file for rent restoration upon receiving a rescinded order from
the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
In its petition for administrative review the owner requests
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that the
Vacate Order has been rescinded.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that the owner did not interpose an answer
in the original proceeding and that, based upon the record before
him, the Rent Administrator was correct and properly reduced the
rents at the subject building.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner has not offered any
evidence whatsoever probative of its allegation that the Vacate
Order has been rescinded.
The owner's petition does not make clear whether it is the own-
er's contention that the alleged rescission of the Vacate Order
occurred before the DHCR Rent Administrator's order was issued
or whether the contention is that it occurred following the is-
suance of the Rent Administrator's order. If it is the former,
then the allegation is not proven due to the owner's failure to
submit evidence thereof to the Rent Administrator. If it is the
latter, then the Rent Administrator's order reducing the rents
was nevertheless correct when issued, and this order is issued
without prejudice to the owner's rights as they may pertain to an
application for a rent restoration based on a restoration of
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby