FG 130438-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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FG 130438-RT                
                 VARIOUS TENANTS OF                         
                 143-25   84TH   DRIVE                  RENT    ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      FC 130015-B
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   
                                          

          Various tenants of the above-named building filed a timely  peti-
          tion for administrative review of an order  issued  on  July  10,
          1991, by a Rent Administrator concerning the  building  known  as
          143-25 84th Drive, Briarwood,  New  York,  wherein  the  tenants'
          application for rent reductions was denied.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of evidence in the  record  and
          has carefully considered that  portion  relevant  to  the  issues
          raised by the petition for review.

          On March 4, 1991 the seven subject tenants, filed an  application
          for a rent reduction based on  the  owner's  alleged  failure  to
          maintain services alleging a  defective  elevator,  dirty  public
          area floors, inadequate building  maintenance  personnel,  inade-
          quate water pressure, and fluctuating water temperature.

          The owner interposed an answer to the tenants' complaint  wherein
          it alleged, in substance, that all conditions had been corrected.

          On June 12, 1991 a physical inspection of  the  subject  building
          was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community  Renewal
          (DHCR).  The inspector, in his report, noted that the  complained
          of conditions were not as alleged by the tenants.

           

          On July 10, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here
          under review, finding that no diminution of services had occurred 
          denying the application  and  terminating  the  proceeding.   The
          tenants were also advised of their right to file individu l  com-
          plaint regarding allegations of low water pressure or fluctuating 
          water temperature in their apartments.  

          In their petition for administrative review six of  the  original
          seven complainants are joined by twenty-four  additional  tenants







          FG 130438-RT
          who were not parties to the  original  proceeding  in  requesting
          that the Rent Administrator's order be reversed alleging that the 
          items claimed in the original complaint constitute diminutions of 
          service.  Attached to the  petitions  are  photocopied  documents
          previously submitted in the Rent Administrator's  proceeding  and
          exhibits labelled "A" through "N".

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be denied.

          The Commissioner finds that the twenty-four  signatories  of  the
          instant petition who did not sign  the  original  complaint  lack
          standing to file  the  petition  and  are  improperly  joined  as
          parties.

          The Commissioner also notes that all  of  the  numerous  exhibits
          attached to the petition antedate  the  filing  of  the  original
          complaint on March 4, 1991 and are not probative of conditions as 
          they existed during the proceeding under review or on the date of 
          issuance of the administrator's order.

          The Commissioner notes that while the tenants question t e  find-
          ings of fact the record clearly reflects those findings by virtue 
          of DHCR inspection which occurred on June 12, 1991.

          Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the administrator properly 
          relied on the results of the inspection, and that, based thereon, 
          the administrator properly determined that t e  owner  was  main-
          taining services and properly denied the tenants' rent  reduction
          application.











          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 Rent Administrator's 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