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




    

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