FI 120202-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.:   FJ 110043-RT;
                                                  FI 120202-RT;  FI 110203-RT;
                                                  FI 110204-RT;  FI 110205-RT;
                                                  FI 120206-RT;  FI 110207-RT;
                   VARIOUS TENANTS,     FI 110208-RT;  FI 110209-RT;
                                                  FI 110210-RT;  FI 110211-RT;
                                                  FI 110212-RT;  FI 110213-RT;
                                                  FI 120214-RT;  FI 110215-RT;
                                                  FI 110216-RT;  FI 110188-RT
                                                  RENT          ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS.:                
                                                  FF 130128-OR;  DA 130073-B
                                 PETITIONERS     PREMISES: 41-43 39th Place
          ----------------------------------x     Sunnyside, NY


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW  
                                          

          Seventeen tenants of the above referenc d  building  filed  Peti-
          tions for Administrative Review against an order issued on August 
          29, 1991. It  is  noted  that  one  tenant's  petition  had  been
          mistakenly assigned an owner's docket number - ARB No. FI 110188 
          RO - but that is hereby amended, as shown in the  above  list  of
          petitioners in this proceeding. 

          The subject order granted the owner's application to restore rent 
          to various  rent-controlled  and  rent-stabilized  apartments  as
          based solely on the repair of defective hallway  windows  on  the
          2nd, 3rd, and 5th floors of the subject building.  This  was  the
          only remaining item from a building-wide reduction order,  issued
          on January 10, 1990, which had cited four items.  Specifically as 
          to the windows on those floors, the reduction  order  found  that
          the public area windows were not permitted air seepage  and  were
          rusted and peeling paint.  Additionally, some of the windows were 
          missing locks, and two on the 2nd floor were off the  hinges.   A
          reduction of $2.00  per  month  was  granted  to  rent-controlled
          tenants for this item.

          In an  inspection  conducted  as  part  of  the  owner's  earlier
          restoration application, under docket number EL 130211-OR, it was 
          found that three of the four items listed  on  the  building-wide
          order had been fully repaired, and that all public  area  windows
          were securely hinged, had locks  and  contained  no  evidence  of
          peeling paint or rust.  However, it  was  found  that  there  was
          still air seepage  from the windows  on  the  2nd,  3rd  and  5th







          FI 120202-RT, et al.
          floors. 

          Pursuant to that inspection, an  order  was  issued  on  May  24,
          1991, which granted the restoration of rent for t e  named  rent-
          controlled tenants for the three other  items  on  the  reduction
          order, but withheld  any  rent  restoration  for  the  stabilized
          tenants pending the completion  of  the  repair  of  the  hallway
          windows.  That order  is  no  longer  subject  to  administrative
          review.

          The instant proceeding was  commenced  with  the  filing  of  the
          owner's application  for  rent  restoration  on  June  10,  1991,
          wherein he claimed that the air seepage from the hallway  windows
          had been repaired.

          A physical inspection was conducted on July  2,  1991  which  re-
          ported that there was no evidence of air seepage from the hallway 
          windows on those floors.  

          Various tenants sent in answers objecting to  the  rent  restora-
          tion, claiming that the windows had not been scraped,  re-caulked
          and painted as required, and that some did not  close  completely
          and still permitted air seepage.

          In an order issued on August 29,  1991,  the  Rent  Administrator
          restored the rent for  all  rent-controlled  and  rent-stabilized
          tenants as based on the inspector's finding  that  there  was  no
          evidence of air seepage from the public area windows.

          On appeal, the seventeen tenant petitioners allege in  substance,
          that the windows in the public hallways had not been installed in 
          a workmanlike manner; that the frames were rusted and rotted, and 
          permitted air seepage; that puddles form when it rains; and  that
          the insulation was inadequate.  Most of the petitions called  for
          a new inspection.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that these petitions should be denied.

          In the instant proceeding, a physical inspection was conducted to 
          verify that there was no air seepage through the  public  hallway
          windows, which had been the only remaining item from the original 
          reduction order that  had  not  been  repaired.   The  inspection
          report clearly stated that there was no evidence of air  seepage,
          and the Rent Administrator properly granted the rent restoration. 
          The petitioners' claims that the windows were  still  rusted  and
          peeling paint are not subject to review in this proceeding  since
          the prior proceeding had already determined that  all  conditions
          had been corrected except for the air seepage, and that order has 
          not been appealed. Finally, the claim that the windows were still 
          permitting air seepage  fails  to  disprove  the  findings  of  a
          professional inspection absent a showing of  some  deficiency  in
          its execution. 


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations
          and the Rent Stabilization Code,  it is,








          FI 120202-RT, et al.
          ORDERED, that the tenants' petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied and that the 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