FI 120202-RT, et al.
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
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.
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
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
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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA