AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, 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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NOS.: FG 410390-RT
                                                              FG 410445-RT
                                                              EH 430081-RO
                                                              EH 410087-RO
             ZH CONTROL CO.                                   EI 430064-RO
                 AND                                          EJ 430357-RO      
             VARIOUS TENANTS,                   
                                                 DRO DOCKET NOS.:              
                                                              EH 430029-RP
                                                              CJ 430141-B
                                                              EA 430052-OR
                                                              EH 430031-RP
                                                              CJ 430142-B
                                                              EA 430053-OR
                              PETITIONERS     
          -----------------------------------X                           
            
              ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING TENANT'S AND OWNERS PETITIONS
              FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE
                       ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

          The above-named  petitioner-tenants  filed  timely  Petitions  for
          Administrative Review (PARs)  against  various  orders  issued  by
          the  Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz  Plaza,  Jamaica,  New   York,
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 83-89 Barrow Street 
          and 63-69 Morton Street, New York, New York,  as  more  fully  set
          forth below.

          Division records show that on August 24, 1989,  the  Administrator
          issued  orders  under  Docket  Nos.  CJ-430141-B  and  CJ-430142-B
          granting rent reductions to all tenants as rent stabilized tenants 
          based on a finding of a broken rear door lock and open door.

          On April 9, 1990, the Commissioner issued an  order  under  Docket
          Nos.  DI-430171-RO/DI-430175-RO/DI-410002-RT/DI-430001-RT)   which
          granted the tenants' petitions of the Administrator's  August  24,
          1989 order to provide all rent controlled tenants a monthly  $5.00
          rent reduction for the defective rear door lock.  The Commissioner 
          also granted an additional $10.00 monthly rent reduction  to  rent
          controlled tenants  for  the  elimination  of  the  Barrow  Street
          building  laundry  facilities.   The  Commissioner  remanded   the
          proceedings to the Administrator to ascertain if  the  tenants  in
          the Morton Street building  had  access  to  storage  space.   The
          Commissioner rejected the  tenants'  contention  that  the  Morton
          Street laundry room was not maintained, that the tenants be 






          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          allowed to use the roof for washlines  and  that  porter  services
          were inadequate.  The Commissioner denied the owner's petitions in 
          their entirety.

          Subsequent thereto the owner filed a petition in the Supreme Court 
          pursuant  to  Article  78  of  the  Civil  Practice  Law  &  Rules
          challenging the finding that the owner had  failed  to  provide  a
          laundry room for certain rent controlled tenants and that the rear 
          door(s) required lock(s).

          On August 1, 1990 the  Administrator  amended  the  original  rent
          reduction orders (CJ-430141-B  and  CJ-430142-B)  to  correct  the
          status of the controlled tenants, to state the monetary amount  of
          the rent reduction for the defective rear  door  lock(s),  and  to
          grant a rent reduction to controlled tenants for  the  elimination
          of the Barrow Street laundry room, and established  the  effective
          date.  However, the orders were duplicative of the  Commissioner's
          April 9,  1990  determination.   The  owner  filed  administrative
          appeals on August 6, 1990, assigned PAR Docket  Nos.  EH-430081-RO
          and EH-430087-RO challenging the Administrator's amended orders.

          In additional proceedings,  the  Administrator  on  September  17,
          1990, denied the owner's applications under Docket Nos. EA-430052 
          OR and EA-430053-OR to restore rents previously reduced.  On April 
          23,  1991  the  Commissioner  denied  the  owner's  administrative
          appeals  under  Docket  Nos.  EI-430064-RO  and  EJ-430357-RO  and
          affirmed   the   Administrator's   determinations   denying   rent
          restoration.   Subsequently  on  May  21,  1991  the  Commissioner
          granted the owner's request to reopen and reconsider  the  owner's
          administrative appeals. 

          By an order dated October 15, 1990, ZH Control v. DHCR, Index  No.
          9571/90, Sup. Ct.  (Pecora,  J.),  the  Court  directed  that  the
          Division reconsider the question as to which rear door(s) required 
          the lock(s).   The  Court  also  concluded  that  questions,  with
          respect to the elimination of the Barrow Street laundry  room  and
          denial of access  o  the  roof,  required  clarification  and  re-
          evaluation as the agency's determination may  have  been  rendered
          without a complete record.  As  previously  noted,  the  issue  of
          storage space for Morton Street tenants, as  well  as  the  Barrow
          Street laundry room, had previously been addressed and remanded to 
          the Administrator by the Commissioner.

          On remand, from the  Court  and  by  the  Commissioner  and  after
          service of notice  upon  the  parties,  the  Administrator,  under
          Docket Nos. ED-430029-RP and ED-430031-RP requested an  inspection
          which was conducted on May 29, 1991.  The inspector reported  that
          he found no defect in the door locks of  doors  leading  from  the
          rear of each building into the rear courtyard, and explained  that
          tenants must use a key to gain access from the  courtyard  to  the
          building as the doors were self-closing when  operating  properly.







          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          The inspector also reported that a gate on Hudson  Street  to  the
          middle courtyard was locked at the time  of  inspection,  and  not
          open or accessible to non-residents.  The inspector observed  that
          laundry rooms were provided in both the Barrow Street  and  Morton
          Street buildings.  The inspection  revealed  evidence  of  storage
          room in the Barrow Street basement and indicated that all  tenants
          had  access  to  the  storage  area   on   request   through   the
          superintendent.

          Based on the inspection, on June 19, 1991 the Administrator issued 
          orders revoking the rent reduction on  the  grounds  that  laundry
          rooms were provided and that means of entry to the  premises  were
          secure at the time of inspection, notwithstanding that a rear yard 
          building door had evidence of loose or missing screw.   The  issue
          of the tenants' access to roof clothes lines was deemed not to  be
          an essential service as the laundry drying facilities  were  being
          provided; it was noted that the existence of roof clothesline  may
          constitute a Building  Code  violation.   The  Administrator  also
          noted that storage facilities were  provided,  albeit  sealed  and
          available to tenants' upon request through the superintendent.

          Two tenants filed timely Petitions for Administrative Review.  The 
          tenants acknowledge that services were  restored,  but  argue,  in
          essence, that it was improper to revoke the rent reductions solely 
          on the basis of the last inspection held on May 21, 1991, when, in 
          fact, the tenants had been denied security, laundry room and other 
          services for almost two years after the tenants'  complaint.   One
          tenant also alleged lack of due process, asserting  that  she  was
          not served a copy of the owner's March 31, 1989  answer  with  the
          October 22, 1990 notice to reconsider pursuant to remand.

          The owner was served with copies of the petitions, but there is no 
          indication in file that the owner responded.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that the proceeding should be remanded  to  the  Commissioner  for
          further consideration as more fully set forth below.

          The Commissioner concurs that  it  was  improper  to  revoke  rent
          reductions based solely on  an  inspection  conducted  some  years
          after the tenants' complaints and after the rent reduction  orders
          issued.   Accordingly,  the  proceedings  should  be  remanded  to
          ascertain the appropriate periods the  tenants  were  entitled  to
          rent  reductions  based  on  the  defective  door  locks  and  the
          temporary elimination of one laundry room.  In order to  ascertain
          the  correct  period(s)  the  tenants  were   entitled   to   rent
          reductions, the Administrator shall also clarify  and  re-evaluate
          issues,  as  directed  by  the  Court.   The  Administrator  shall
          consider the record to date, as well  as  any  evidence  submitted
          hereafter, in accordance with this  opinion,  as  more  fully  set
          forth below.






          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          Regarding rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New  York  City  provides,  in  pertinent
          part, that if the landlord fails to maintain  essential  services,
          the Administrator may order a decrease in the maximum rent  in  an
          amount which the Administrator in his  discretion  may  determine.
          Further, Section 2200.3(b) of the Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations
          for New York City defines essential services as  "those  essential
          services which the landlord furnished, or which he was obliged  to
          furnish, on April 30, 1962, and which were included in the maximum 
          rent for the  housing  accommodation  on  that  date.   These  may
          include, but are  not  limited  to,  the  following:  ...  laundry
          facilities and  privileges."   Section  2201.2  of  the  Rent  and
          Eviction Regulations for New York City also provides, in pertinent 
          part,   that   every   landlord   shall   furnish   with   housing
          accommodations the same essential services as were  furnished,  or
          required to be furnished, on April 30,  1962,  or  any  subsequent
          date determining the maximum rent.

          With regard to the rent stabilized tenants, Section 2523.4 of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code provides in pertinent part that  a  tenant
          may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the legal regulated  rent
          to the level  in  effect  prior  to  the  most  recent  guidelines
          adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent for  the  period
          for which it is found that the owner failed to  maintain  required
          services.  Further, Section 2520.6(r) defines required services as 
          that space and those services which the owner was  maintaining  or
          was required to maintain on the applicable base date (in this case 
          June 30, 1974) and any additional space or  services  provided  or
          required to be provided thereafter.

          Section 2520.6(r)(3) defines ancillary service as that  space  and
          those  required  services  not  contained  within  the  individual
          housing  accommodation  which  the  owner  was  providing  on  the
          applicable  base  date  and  any  additional  space  and  services
          provided or required to be provided thereafter by applicable law.

          Section  2520.6(r)(3)(xi)  provides  in  pertinent  part  that  an
          ancillary service for which there is or  was  a  separate  charge,
          shall not be subject to the  provisions  of  this  Code  where  no
          common ownership between the operator  of  such  service  and  the
          owner exists or existed on the applicable base date (here June 30, 
          1974) or at any time subsequent thereto, and such  service  is  or
          was provided  on  the  applicable  base  date  and  at  all  times
          thereafter by an independent contractor pursuant to a contract  or
          agreement with the owner.

          For rent  controlled  tenants  specific  monetary  reductions  are
          imposed for each service  reduction,  and  the  Administrator  may
          grant partial rent restorations until all services  are  restored.
          For rent stabilized tenants, a rent reduction is imposed  for  any
          service decrease and no further rent reduction may be imposed  for







          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          any additional service decrease.  The  owner  may  not  demand  or
          collect any rent increase until the Administrator issues an  order
          restoring the rent based on restoration of all services.

          The Commissioner remanded the question of which rear doors were at 
          issue and whether the doors required locks.  The  last  inspection
          revealed that the two buildings each contain doors to the rear  of
          each building to the inner rear courtyard.  The  locks  have  been
          replaced, repaired or installed by the owner; the owner  has  also
          admitted that the doors were previously kept open.  

          The building also contains a locked, metal gate from the street to 
          the middle courtyard connecting to the buildings' rear yards.   In
          the record below the owner contended that the gate was  locked  at
          all times, while the tenants alleged that the gate was  frequently
          left open unattended to  allow  storekeepers  access  to  supplies
          maintained in the buildings' basements, compromising the  security
          of the buildings.  The last inspection confirmed  that  access  to
          the buildings through the rear courtyard doors  can  now  only  be
          obtained by keys, minimizing the threat to building security.  

          On remand the Administrator shall ascertain if the  building  rear
          courtyard doors were properly secured in accordance with  Building
          Code and Housing Maintenance Code requirements on  the  applicable
          base date or thereafter, and whether the equipment was maintained, 
          and complied with the Housing Maintenance Code  and  the  Building
          Code requirements, when the tenants filed  their  complaint.   The
          Administrator and the parties are referred to  Section  27-371  of
          the Building Code and Section 27-2044 of the  Housing  Maintenance
          Code for the applicable standards.  The Administrator  shall  also
          consider whether the owner's past practices  with  regard  to  the
          metal gate compromised building security or if, in fact,  provided
          the building adequate security.

          The Commissioner is  of  the  opinion  that  pursuant  to  Section
          2200.3(b) of  the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations,  which  lists
          "laundry facilities and privileges"  as  essential  services,  the
          Barrow Street laundry room was an essential service.  With  regard
          to whether this service was furnished or required to be  furnished
          on April 30, 1962, it is noted that the owner has conceded in  the
          March 31, 1989 answer to the tenants' complaints that the  tenants
          were not authorized to use the roof for their  clotheslines  since
          prior to 1972, when space in the basement was leased to  the  coin
          operated laundry machine company.  Accordingly, the  provision  of
          the two laundry rooms must  be  considered  an  essential  service
          which the owner was required  to  furnish  pursuant  to  the  Rent
          Control Law and Regulations.  It is further noted  that  the  Rent
          Control Law and Regulations make no distinction between  essential
          services which are provided  within  an  apartment  or  which  are
          ancillary (provided outside the apartment).  Further an  owner  is
          obligated to see  that  all  essential  services  are  maintained;
          including those which are supplied by independent contractors.  






          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          Therefore, all rent controlled tenants  of  the  subject  premises
          were entitled to a rent decrease due to the temporary  elimination
          of the Barrow Street laundry  room,  since  the  tenants  of  both
          buildings were compelled to use only one laundry room.  Such  rent
          decrease would remain in effect until the  owner  applied  to  the
          Administrator for a rent restoration based on the  restoration  of
          the Barrow Street laundry room and the Administrator issued a rent 
          restoration order.  The Commissioner is also of the  opinion  that
          for the rent controlled tenants, a rent  decrease  of  $10.00  per
          month is warranted for such service decrease.

          As to the rent stabilized tenants, it is noted that the  owner  in
          its March 31, 1989 answer stated that the laundry room service was 
          always supplied by an independent contractor and the owner was not 
          responsible for its  maintenance.   However,  the  owner  did  not
          submit sufficient evidence to  establish  that  the  laundry  room
          service was supplied by an independent contractor since  June  30,
          1974 (the base date).  Also, a copy of  the  owner's  answer  does
          not appear to have been served on the tenants.  Accordingly,  this
          proceeding must be remanded for the purpose of serving the owner's 
          March 31, 1989 answer on the tenants,  affording  the  tenants  an
          opportunity to respond, allowing  the  owner  to  prove  that  the
          laundry room service was supplied  by  an  independent  contractor
          since June 30, 1974  or  the  date  the  laundry  room  was  first
          supplied, and giving the tenants a copy of any additional evidence 
          submitted by the owner and a chance to respond.  

          If it is found that the Barrow Street laundry room service was not 
          always provided by an independent contractor since June  30,  1974
          or the  date  the  laundry  room  was  first  supplied,  then  the
          elimination of the Barrow Street laundry room should be added as a 
          service decrease for both the Morton Street and Barrow Street rent 
          stabilized tenants.  If it is found that the Barrow Street laundry 
          room service was always  provided  by  an  independent  contractor
          since June 30, 1974  or  the  date  the  laundry  room  was  first
          supplied, then the Rent Administrator's order should  be  modified
          to provide that the owner is not obligated to provide or  maintain
          the laundry room service for the rent stabilized tenants, but that 
          the owner is obligated to keep the space provided for the  laundry
          room because such space  is  a  required  service  (since  it  was
          provided by the owner from the  base  date  or  when  the  laundry
          service was first  provided).   The  owner  remains  obligated  to
          provide and maintain the two laundry room facilities for the  rent
          controlled tenants.

          The owner's suggestion that the rent-controlled  tenants  gave  up
          their right to use roof clotheslines in 1972 in exchange  for  the
          provision of two laundry rooms by the owner is compelling but not 
          dispositive  of  the   question   presented.    On   remand,   the
          Administrator shall consider additional evidence to ascertain  if,
          in fact, such use of the roof violated  the  Building  or  Housing
          Maintenance Code, and, if not, whether this service was improperly 







          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.

          eliminated for both rent-controlled and the  then  rent-stabilized
          tenants.  No evidence was presented to support the  tenants'  bare
          allegation that the tenants were  allowed  to  use  the  roof  for
          sunbathing purposes.  Accordingly the owner is  not  obligated  to
          permit the tenants to use the roof for such purpose.

          The record to date  establishes  that  all  tenants  are  provided
          storage space.  On remand, the Administrator shall  ascertain  the
          period, if any, Morton Street tenants temporarily were deprived of 
          storage facilities.

          If necessary for a proper determination of the issues presented  a
          hearing may be scheduled.

          By an order dated May 21, 1991, granted the  owner's  request  for
          reopening and  reconsideration  of  Administrative  Review  Orders
          issued under  Docket  Nos.  EJ-430357-RO  and  EI-430064-RO.   The
          Commissioner's order had affirmed the Rent Administrator's  orders
          under Docket Nos. EA-430052-OR and EA-430053-OR which  had  denied
          the owner's application to restore rents, on the grounds  that  an
          on-site inspection conducted on July 13, 1990,  confirmed  that  a
          broken rear door lock had not been corrected.   In  light  of  the
          instant  proceedings  which  concern,  among  other   items,   the
          effective dates the owner was entitled to  rent  restoration,  the
          Administrator's  orders  denying  the  owner's  rent   restoration
          applications should be revoked and the proceedings remanded to the 
          Administrator  for   consolidation   and   processing   with   the
          reconsideration of the service reduction complaints.

          Petitions for Administrative Review Docket Nos.  EH-430081-RO  and
          EH-430087-RO appealing the Administrator's order issued on July 6, 
          1990, amending prior orders under the same docket  numbers  issued
          on August 24, 1989 to correct the status of each  rent  controlled
          tenant, and to establish monetary amount for  the  rent  reduction
          are granted, to the extent of revoking the Administrator's July 6, 
          1990 determination.  The proceedings are terminated as duplicative 
          and moot by reason of the Commissioner's April 9,  1990  order  to
          the same effect.

          The Commissioner notes that the petitions und r  Docket  Nos.  FG-
          410390-RT and FG-410445-RT are granted to  the  tenants  in  their
          individual  capacity.   However,   the   Administrator   may,   if
          appropriate, consider if the results, on  reconsideration,  accrue
          to the benefit of the tenants building-wide.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 403,  Laws
          of 1983, as amended by Chapter 102, Laws of 1984, it is

          ORDERED,  that  the  owner's  and  the   tenants   Petitions   for
          Administrative Review be, and the same hereby  are,  granted,  and
          that the Administrator's orders denying the owner's applications 






          AR Docket Nos. FG 410390-RT, et al.


          to restore rent, and the Administrator's orders annulling the rent 
          reductions based on the latest inspection, be revoked, and that 
          the proceedings be opened and remanded  to  the  Administrator  to
          ascertain  the  period(s)  the  tenants  were  entitled  to   rent
          reductions, if any, based  on  the  deprivation  of  essential  or
          required services, following the tenants' initial complaints.   On
          remand,  the  Administrator  shall  also  ascertain  if  or   when
          services were properly restored, and restore rents, accordingly.

          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