FH 430084 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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FH 430084 RT
301 East 66th Street Tenants DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
Assoc., DOCKET NO.: EC 430097 B
PETITIONER Owner: Imperial Properties
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 6, 1991, the above-named tenants filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on July 3, 1991 by
the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New
York concerning the housing accommodations known as 301 East 66th
Street, New York, New York wherein the Administrator denied the
tenants' application for a rent reduction based on alleged
decreases in building-wide services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence of record and
has careful considered that portion of the record relevant to
the issues raised in the administrative appeal.
The tenants commenced this proceeding on April 9, 1990 by filing
a complaint of a decrease in building-wide services.
In response, the owner denied that there had been a decrease in
any service and asserted that it had upgraded and improved some
of the complained of services, e.g. the security system. The
owner submitted invoices and contracts as proof that it was
maintaining various services, e.g. maintenance of elevator and
heating systems.
On June 11, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject premises
was conducted by a staff member of the DHCR. The inspection
revealed that the allegedly decreased services were being
provided.
Based on the results of the physical inspection, the
Administrator denied the tenants' application and terminated the
proceeding.
In the appeal, the tenants concede the veracity of the inspection
results but contend that their complaints could not be completely
verified by an inspection and thus their complaints were not
adequately addressed in the inspection report. In substance, the
tenants reiterate the complaints filed with the Administrator:
1) Even though the package room has been restored, there has
been no redress for the time when there was inadequate
service in another room;
FH 430084 RT
2) There is no provision for emergency covera e when the on-
site superintendent is away;
3) The elevators are in frequent disrepair. The way they
operate is sporadic and inconsistent;
4) The mailroom bulletin board, which is covered with glass and
is locked, remains inaccessible to tenants' because its
usage is controlled by the superintendent;
5) Despite the installation of new securi y devices, the re-
deployment of service employees has resulted in a decrease
in security and an increase in burglaries and muggings;
6) Tenants cannot call other tenants via the intercom as was
formerly possible;
7) The inspection did not address the ongoing problem of heat
outages;
8) The former superintendent provided some handyman services
not provided by the current superintendent with a resultant
decrease in the number of on-duty hours of handyman and
proper service.
Although afforded the opportunity to do so, the owner did not
reply to the petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that this petition should be denied.
The physical inspection conducted on June 11, 1991 revealed that:
1) Package room service is being provided;
2) The superintendent resides on the premises. For those times
when the superintendent may be unavailable, an emergency
telephone number is posted;
3) There are two passenger elevators which are operative and
stop at all floors;
4) There are bulletin boards located in the laundry room and
mail room which are available to tenants;
5) Adequate security is being provided. There are surveillance
cameras and intercom systems throughout the premises.
The issue of tenants calling each other via the intercom was not
presented to the Administrator for consideration; it would be
inappropriate to consider this issue at the PAR level. Although
the inspection did not address heat outage, the owner submitted
evidence that the heating system was being maintained. The
record indicates there has been no decrease in the number of
service employees or the number of hours worked. The alleged
decreased level of service provided by porters and handyman does
not warrant a rent reduction.
Although the tenants may have suffered some intermittent
FH 430084 RT
discomfort or inconvenience, the Commissioner must rely on the
results of the physical inspection which confirmed that the
services were being maintained. Accordingly, the Commissioner
finds that the Administrator appropriately terminated the
proceeding.
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:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
