FG 610317 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 610317 RO
                                                  
          2200 REALTY CO.                         RENT
          C/O J.K. MANAGEMENT CO.                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EH 630135 B 
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On July 24, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued May 13, 1991. The order concerned 
          various housing accommodations located at 2200 Morris Avenue, 
          Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a building-wide rent 
          reduction for failure to maintain required services.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced August 22, 1990 when 22 of the 
          44 tenants of the building filed a Statement of Complaint of 
          Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein they alleged the 
          following services deficiencies:

                    1.   Boiler only functions sporadically,

                    2.   Doors continually open because locks not 
                         functioning,

                    3.   Elevators out of order.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September 
          24, 1990 and stated that the boiler is in good working order and is 
          promptly repaired if it breaks down, that the elevator is also in 
          good working order and that there is a new entrance door in the 
          building with secure locks.  The owner attached copies of letters 
          from an elevator maintenance and a heating company which were 
          offered to show that the elevator and boiler are functioning 
          properly and are repaired immediately upon breakdown.  The owner 
          also enclosed a bill for new elevator parts.












          FG 610317 RO

           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspection was conducted on October 18, 1990 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Vestibule door lock missing,

                    2.   Bell and buzzer system inoperative,

                    3.   South elevator third floor door is dislocated,

                    4.   North elevator lobby door does not open and close 
                         automatically.

               On October 29, 1990 the Administrator sent the owner a notice 
          detailing the report of the inspector and affording the owner 20 
          days to make repairs and provide the Administrator with proof of 
          the fact that repairs had been made.  On November 6, 1990 the owner 
          filed a response to the Administrator's notice.  The owner stated 
          that a lock had been installed on the vestibule door, that a 
          contractor had been retained to provide an estimate for the 
          installation of an intercom system as well as the repair of the 
          bell and buzzer system, and that the elevators had been repaired.  
          The owner attached bills from the elevator repair company for the 
          work done, as well as a note from the company providing the 
          estimate for the intercom system.

               The Administrator order a re-inspection of the subject 
          building.  The inspector visited the building on January 6, 7, and 
          14, 1991 and reported the following:

                    1.   Bell and buzzer system inoperative,

                    2.   Vestibule door lock removed.

          The inspector reported that the elevators were operative.    

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on May 
          13, 1991 based on the report of the inspector.  With regard to the 
          issue of the defective boiler, the Administrator directed the 
          tenants to file a complaint either with the New York City Office of 
          Code Enforcement or a heat and hot water complaint with the DHCR.  
          A rent reduction equal to the most recent guideline adjustment was 
          ordered for rent stabilized tenants.  A rent reduction of $12.00 
          per month was ordered for rent controlled tenants. 

               On appeal the owner states that the vestibule door lock has 
          been replaced.  The owner also states that the bell and buzzer 
          system has been reconnected and asserts that it was disconnected on 
          the Bronx District Attorney's order to abate drug activity in the 
          building. The owner attached to the petition an invoice dated June 
          6, 1991 regarding the installation of a new panel for the buzzer 






          FG 610317 RO

          system and a new door opener. 

               Various tenants filed responses wherein they stated, in sum, 
          that services had not been restored.  The owner filed replies on 
          February 10, 1992 and May 6, 1992 wherein it essentially restated 
          the allegations set forth in the petition for administrative review 
          and annexed additional invoices regarding various repairs all dated 
          subsequent to the issuance of the rent reduction order.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The relevant inquiry in deciding this administrative appeal is 
          whether the Administrator was correct in issuing the order here 
          under review based on the evidence in the record at the time of 
          issuance.  The Commissioner finds that the Administrator was 
          correct.  It is settled law that the report of a DHCR inspector is 
          entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations 
          of a party to the proceeding.  The owner herein was afforded notice 
          of the initial report of the inspector and an opportunity to 
          correct the conditions set forth in the Administrator's notice. The 
          re-inspection, conducted on three different days in January, 1991, 
          clearly showed that the necessary repairs had not been done.  The 
          evidence of repairs submitted by the owner with the petition all 
          post date the issuance of the order and therefore do not establish 
          that the order was incorrect when issued.

               Pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2523.4 a rent stabilized tenant may apply 
          to the DHCR for a rent reduction and the Division is required to 
          order a rent reduction based upon a finding that the owner has 
          failed to maintain required services.  Repairs and maintenance fall 
          within the definition of required services pursuant to 9 NYCRR 
          2520.6 (r).  For rent controlled tenants the Administrator is 
          empowered by 9 NYCRR 2202.16 to order a decrease in the maximum 
          rent based on the reasonable exercise of discretion.  As stated 
          above, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this 
          determination on the entire record including the results of several 
          on-site physical inspections which revealed that required services 
          were not being maintained.  The order here under review is 
          affirmed.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner filed for rent 
          restoration (see Docket No. FG 630163 OR) and that this application 
          was denied by the Administrator on March 26, 1992.  The owner has 
          reapplied for rent restoration (see Docket No. GE 630142 OR).  Said 
          application is currently pending before the DHCR.


               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and 
          Rent and Eviction Regulations it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 












          FG 610317 RO

          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby 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