ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 530143 RO
           
                                  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.:               
                                                 FF 530143 RO 
                                              :  (Refile of FA 530061 RO)
                                                 DRO DOCKET NO.:           
                                                 CB 530065 OR               
                   DEBORAH JONES 
                                             
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                                          REVOKING ORDER DENYING RENT RESTORATION AND 
                            GRANTING OWNER'S APPLICATION
                                FOR RENT RESTORATION

               On June 5, 1991, the above  named  petitioner  owner  timely
          refiled and perfected a Petition for Administrative Review  (PAR)
          against an order  issued  on  December  27,  1990,  by  the  Rent
          Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York,  concerning  the
          housing accommodations known as 48-50 Pinehurst Avenue, New York, 
          NY, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's  application  to
          restore rents previously reduced by  $2.00  per  month  for  rent
          controlled tenants in  D.R.O.  Docket  NO.  CK  430061  B.   Rent
          reductions were granted on the ground that the exterior vestibule 
          door knob was missing.  The rents for stabilized tenants were not 
          reduced, but the owner was directed to restore services. 

               The challenged order denied the owner's application for rent 
          restoration based on the results of an  inspection  conducted  on
          November 1, 1990 that showed that the exterior door knob was  not
          in place.

               On appeal, the owner points out that, among other items, the 
          vestibule door knob was replaced shortly after  the  issuance  of
          the rent reduction order.   In  fact,  in  the  rent  restoration
          proceedings herein under review, the owner had submitted a 




          contract, dated August 22, 1989, for the installation  of  a  new
          vestibule door, complete with inner and outer door knobs,  and  a
          cancelled check, dated September 15, 1989, as  proof  of  payment
          for the installation.  The owner surmises that the  current,  and
          the prior occurrences, were due to vandalism, and  requests  that
          the denial of the rent restoration application, as  well  as  the
          rent restoration order, be reversed.  The owner also asserts that 
          the absence of the door knob does not deny entry or egress to any 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 530143 RO
          person with a key, and that no tenant denies the presence of door 
          knobs in the appeal or in the rent restoration proceedings.    

               The applicable law  is  Section  2202.16  of  the  Rent  and
          Eviction Regulations and Section 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code.

               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion that the petition should be granted. 

               The   owner's   submissions   below,   pertaining   to   the
          installation of a new vestibule door, strongly suggested that the 
          owner had  corrected  the  condition  giving  rise  to  the  rent
          reduction.  A similar condition found on  the  November  1,  1990
          inspection of new  equipment  constituted  a  separate  unrelated
          condition, presumably due to acts of vandalism, rather  than  the
          owner's failure to make adequate repairs.

               Based on the record, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the owner's application for restoration of rent should have  been
          granted.  The Administrator's order denying the rent  restoration
          application is, therefore, revoked.  The maximum/legal  regulated
          rents are restored to the level  in  effect  prior  to  the  rent
          reductions plus lawful increases.  

               For rent controlled  tenants,  the  $2.00  rent  restoration
          shall be effective January 1, 1991, the first day  of  the  month
          following issuance of the Administrator's order.  

               The owner's further request, in this appeal of the denial of 
          the  rent  restoration  application,  that  the  underlying  rent
          reduction  order  be  reversed   constitutes   an   impermissible
          collateral attack of a final determination wherein the issue  was
          addressed,  and  not  challenged   by   a   proper   and   timely
          administrative appeal.   

               In  further  consequence  of  the  doctrine  of   collateral
          estoppel, the $2.00 per month  rent  controlled  rent  reductions
          granted for Apartments Nos. 31 and 41, which were  registered  as
          rent stabilized apartments on the date of the Administrator's 


          rent reduction order, may  not  be  revoked  but  are  terminated
          effective April 1, 1990, the first day  of  the  month  following
          service of the owner's rent restoration application on  the  rent
          stabilized tenants.  

               Any arrears due the owner by the tenants as a result of  the
          order may be paid in equal monthly installments over  the  course
          of the next two (2) months following issuance of this order.

               The Commissioner does not take lightly the owner's claim  of
          vandalism.  However,  vandalism  does  not  obviate  the  owner's
          obligation to maintain the premises and to make  prompt  repairs.
          The order is therefore issued without prejudice to  the  tenants'
          right to file complaint for current service reductions. 

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, the Rent Stabilization Code,  Chapter  403,






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FF 530143 RO
          Laws of 1984, as amended by Chapter 102, Laws of 1984, it is

               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and  the  same  hereby
          is, granted; that the Administrator's order denying  the  owner's
          application for rent restoration  be  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          revoked, and that the owner's application for rent restoration be 
          and the same hereby is granted as provided above.

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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