FI 530239 RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FI 530239-RO
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                  SHOMER MANAGEMENT/             DOCKET NO.: 
                   Y. MOSHE SINGER,               ZDK 530028-B
                                                  625 West 156th Street
                                   PETITIONER     New York, NY

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on  August  29,  1991,  concerning  the
          housing accommodations relating  to  the  above-described  docket

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record  and
          has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to
          the issues raised by the petition. 

          Three separate building-wide complaints were  filed  on  November
          15, 1989, January 2, 1990 and January 9,  1991  and  consolidated
          into one proceeding.  

          In the January 2, 1990 complaint, it was asserted that the  owner
          had failed to maintain numerous services in the subject  building
          including, but not limited to, a "broken", "sunken" sidewalk.

          All three complaints were served on the owner.

          In an answer filed on December 21, 1989 and another dated January 
          24, 1990, the owner denied the allegations as set  forth  in  the
          tenants' complaint and otherwise asserted that repairs  had  been
          performed and completed.

          Thereafter, the subject building was inspected  on  September  7,
          1990 by a DHCR  staff  member  who  confirmed  the  existence  of
          twelve items of decreased  building-wide  services,  including  a
          sidewalk broken in several areas.

          On October 9,  1990,  a  copy  of  the  inspection  report  which
          includes the finding of the sidewalk "broken  in  several  areas"
          was mailed to "New Heights (625) Ltd. Partnership, 184  Joraleman

          FI 530239 RO
          Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201".  The  owner  failed  to  respond  to
          this mailing.

          The subject building was inspected again on January 30, 1991 by a 
          DHCR staff member who confirmed  the  continued  existence  of  a
          broken sidewalk.

          On February 25, 1991, a copy of the inspection report was  mailed
          to "Shomer Management,  449  Broadway,  New  York,  NY  10013,  "
          allowing the owner  the  opportunity  to  correct  the  defective
          conditions and submit proof of compliance.

          In an answer filed on March 27, 1991, the owner stated that  "all
          work was done."

          On April 19, 1991, a third on-site inspection of the premises was 
          conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that  the  sidewalk
          disrepair continues to exist.

          Based on the latest  inspection,  the  Administrator  found  "the
          sidewalk in front of the building broken in various  areas,"  di-
          rected restoration of services and further  ordered  a  reduction
          for all rent-controlled tenants in t e  building  and  all  rent-
          stabilized tenants who joined in the complaint.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that  as  owner
          and manager of the premises in question since August 1, 1989,  it
          has not received any complaint or decision  from  DHCR  regarding
          sidewalk repair.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of  the  opinion
          that the petition should be denied.

          The owner's allegation of lack of notice is not credible when the 
          record reveals that the complaints (which mentioned the need  for
          sidewalk repairs) were sent to the owner at the correct  address.
          In fact, the  owner  responded  to  the  tenants'  complaints  in
          answers filed on December 21, 1989  and  January  24,  1990.   In
          response to a copy of an inspection report (which mentioned the

          defective sidewalk) properly mailed to the owner on February  25,
          1991, the owner filed an answer on March 27,  1991  stating  that
          all work was done."   A  subsequent  on-site  inspection  of  the
          subject premises on  April  19,  1991  contradicted  the  owner's

          Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, provides:

                   "A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduc-
                    tion of the legal regulated rent to  the  level
                    in effect prior to the most recent guidelines
                    adjustment, and the DHCR shall  so  reduce  the
                    rent for the  period  for  which  it  is  found
                    that t e  owner  has  failed  to  maintain  re-
                    quired services."

          Required services are defined in  Section  2520.6(r)  to  include

          FI 530239 RO
          repairs and maintenance.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based  his
          determination on the entire record; including the results of  the
          three on-site physical inspections and that pursuant  to  Section
          2523.4(a) of the Code, the administrator was mandated  to  reduce
          the rent upon determining that the owner had failed  to  maintain

          Section 2202.16 of the Rent  and  Eviction  Regulations  provides
          that if the owner fails to maintain services, t e  Rent  Adminis-
          trator may order a decrease in the  maximum  rent  in  an  amount
          which the Rent Administrator, in his discretion, may determine.

          The record in the instant ca e  reveals  that  the  tenants  com-
          plained about certain conditions at  the  premises  and  physical
          inspections of  the  premises  confirmed  that  these  conditions
          indeed existed.

          The Commissioner notes that while the owner questio s  the  find-
          ings of fact, the  record  clearly  reflects  those  findings  by
          virtue of the many inspections which occurred in this case.

          Moreover, the owner had sufficient time from the date of  service
          of the tenants' complaints until the issuance of t e  Administra-
          tor's order to investigate the tenants' complaints  and  to  make
          the necessary repairs, but failed to do so.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the  Rent  Administrator
          properly determined that the owner had not  corrected  conditions
          and for this reason, rent reductions are warranted.

          The owner may file an application for  rent  restoration  if  the
          sidewalk has already been repaired.  

          THEREFORE, in accordan e  with  the  Rent  and  Eviction  Regula-
          tions for New York City,  and  the  Rent  Stabilization  Law  and
          Code, it is,

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby  is,


                                                   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