ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 430116 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.:               
                                                 FG 430116 RO   
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 DI-430063-B                
               ASHOUR SHAYANI    
               d/b/a ASH MANAGEMENT CO.                              
                                                  

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

           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                     IN PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

               On July 8, 1991 the above-named  petitioner  owner  filed  a
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order  issued
          on June 7, 1991,  by  the  Rent  Administrator  at  Gertz  Plaza,
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          10  East  16th  Street,  New  York,   New   York,   wherein   the
          Administrator determined the tenants' complaint of a reduction of 
          building-wide services. 

               The tenants commenced these  proceedings  on  September  22,
          1989 by filing a  joint  complaint  alleging  various  individual
          apartment and building-wide  services  reductions.   The  tenants
          supplemented  their  application  on  February   6,   1990   with
          additional complaints.  On May 28, 1990,  the  Administrator  was
          advised that title to the property had been transferred to a  new
          owner.

               An inspection of the premises conducted on November 26, 1990 
          confirmed several of the tenants' complaints.  By a letter  dated
          December 4,  1990,  the  Administrator  requested  the  owner  to
          comment  on,  and  to  correct,  the  conditions,  confirmed   by
          inspection, that   

               




                    1. The elevator was dirty and that oil was
                       spilled on the floor causing a hazardous
                       condition.
                    2. The elevator closing gate did not self-
                       close properly, causing elevator not to
                       respond to calls from other floors.
                    3. There was evidence of damaged tar roof
                       paper and water accumulation in the east






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 430116 RO
                       south area of the roof.
                    4. The large exhaust fan was found operating,
                       creating extreme vibration and noise.
                    5. The following apartment doors (exterior) were 
                       peeling paint: 17,15, 16, 2 and 1, Also
                       ceiling and wall above Apt. # 14, had 
                       peeling paint and plaster.
                    6. All elevator doors and south door near
                       elevator main entrance were peeling 
                       paint. 
                    7. Peeling paint and plaster at lobby
                       vestibule door wall, North/West area, 
                       and in the west wall near fire alarm
                       box lobby area.
                    8. Metal supports underneath the bay windows
                       in the front of the building were 
                       separated, split, hanging down and corroded.

               The owner responded on December 29, 1990 that  all  problems
          had  been  corrected  by  the  owner's  staff  and   by   owner's
          contractors, and submitted supporting documentation.  The owner  
          indicated that items  1,  5,  6  and  7  had  been  corrected  by
          building staff, and submitted receipts for supplies.   The  owner
          provided a letter from the elevator  contractor  stating  that  a
          self closing device would be installed (item 2).   Also  enclosed
          was an invoice from the roofing contractor for  repairs  to  roof
          and bay windows (items 3 and 8).  The owner stated that the noise 
          and vibration condition (item 5) was corrected by the  commercial
          tenant and was in compliance with all City  Buildings  Department
          requirements. 

               A follow-up  inspection  conducted  on  May  1,  1991  found
          damaged tar paper and water accumulation on the  roof  area,  and
          metal support of the bay windows that were separated,  split  and
          corroded.  Based on the conditions  found  on  the  May  1,  1991
          inspection, the Administrator issued orders  reducing  rents  for
          both rent controlled and rent stabilized tenants.  





               On appeal the owner argues,  in  essence,  that  the  record
          failed to show  that  any  tenants  were  suffering  a  continued
          impairment of services because of the conditions noted.

               Various tenants, responded disputing the owner's contention. 
          In pertinent part, the tenants reiterate assertions  below  of  a
          lack  of  general   building-wide   maintenance,   question   the
          structural integrity of the owner's repairs and of  the  building
          generally, and  assert  that  top  floor  apartments  have  water
          seepage.  However, only one top floor tenant (apartment 17) cites 
          water seepage problems on appeal.  

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

               After careful consideration, the  Administrator  is  of  the






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 430116 RO
          opinion that the petition should  be  granted  in  part  and  the
          Administrator's order should be modified.

               Damaged tar paper and an accumulation of water on  the  roof
          does not establish that the roof is defective in the  absence  of
          any other evidence of water seepage.  Since the inspector did not 
          report any water stains or peeling paint and  plaster  caused  by
          excessive moisture in any of the public areas, a  rent  reduction
          for the condition of the roof is not warranted.  Accordingly, the 
          $5.00 per month rent reduction for rent  controlled  tenants  for
          this item is revoked.  For leak damage or  water  seepage  within
          the top floor apartments, the tenants  of  those  apartments  may
          file individual complaints.   
               
               As for the metal  supports  beneath  the  bay  windows,  the
          Commissioner  finds  that  the  record  adequately  supports  the
          Administrator's determination that  a  rent  reduction  for  this
          condition is warranted.  The tenants alleged in their complaint a 
          general  deterioration  of  the  exterior  of  the  building  and
          specifically referred to  the  metal  supports  being  separated,
          split, hanging down, and corroded.  The two physical  inspections
          confirmed this condition, including the second  inspection  which
          took place after the owner claims repairs were done  in  December
          1990.  The Administrator properly relied on the results of  these
          inspections and the owner  has  not  established  any  basis  for
          revoking or modifying that determination. 







               The  condition  cited  affects  not   only   the   aesthetic
          appearance of the building but indicates a deterioration  in  the
          facade with possible impairment of the  structural  integrity  of
          the building or at  least  of  the  bay  windows,  and  therefore
          affects all tenants who reside therein and not just  those  whose
          apartments adjoin the defective condition.  The owner's  evidence
          regarding repairs is not sufficient to contradict the results  of
          the  inspection  that  post-dated  the  purported  repairs.   The
          invoice by the contractor who did the work refers to  repairs  to
          "the holes in the first floor north cornice  with  aluminum"  and
          does not refer to any repairs to the metal supports for  the  bay
          windows, which were found to be  defective  in  two  inspections.
          This  portion  of  the  Administrator's  order   is,   therefore,
          affirmed.  

               As to  the  other  building-wide  and  individual  apartment
          conditions cited in  the  tenants'  responses,  the  Commissioner
          notes that responses to an  administrative  appeal  are  not  the
          proper vehicle to raise new service issues nor to challenge the 
          Administrator's findings below.  However,  the  order  is  issued
          without prejudice to the tenants' right to  file  complaints  for
          other current individual or building-wide  services  diminutions,
          if any. 

               The Commissioner further notes these proceedings are not the 
          proper venue for determinations  relating  to  landmark  building






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FG 430116 RO
          status.    

               The payment of any  arrears  owed  by  the  rent  controlled
          tenants to the owner as a result of this order may be paid in six 
          equal monthly installments.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Law and Code, the Rent Control Law and the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations, it is















               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be and  the  same  hereby
          is granted in part and that the Administrator's order be, and the 
          same hereby is modified to delete the damaged tar paper and water 
          accumulation on the roof as a basis for a rent reduction and  the
          $5.00 per month rent reduction for rent  controlled  tenants  for
          this item is hereby revoked effective June 7, 1991.  In all other 
          respects the Administrator's order is affirmed.

          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