FJ 110181 RO
                                  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.: FJ 110181-RO 
                                             :  
                                             :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
             PARKWAY CREST ASSOCIATES/           DOCKET NO.: FD 130083-B
             MAUREEN BUMGARNER,              :
                                             :   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 208-70 Grand Central Parkway
                                PETITIONER   :   Apt. No. 2D
          -----------------------------------X   Queens Village, NY 11427

            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
               AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER TO CORRECT ADDRESS

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on September 12,  1991,  concerning  the
          housing accommodations  relating  to  the  above-described  docket
          number.  

          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.

          The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 23, 1991 by filing a 
          complaint asserting that the main lobby has no security, "with the 
          door open to undesirables  at  all  times";  that  muggings  occur
          because of poor lighting around the  complex;  that  the  building
          management   employs   "persons   who   deal   with   undesirable,
          questionable characters"; that there is uncollected garbage in the 
          building; that the "faulty dumpster brings on roaches  and  mice";
          that stolen articles (cars, trucks, etc.) are  dumped  around  the
          grounds of the  complex;  and  that  there  is  possible  asbestos
          around the building.

          In an  answer  filed  on  May  10,  1991,  the  owner  denied  the
          allegations as set forth in the tenant's  complaint  or  otherwise
          asserted that the defective conditions had been removed.

          Thereafter on August 19, 1991, the subject building was  inspected
          by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that the building  entrance  and
          vestibule doors were defective; that the buzzer release  mechanism
          was defective; and that the building entrance door is self-closing 
          but not self-latching.






          FJ 110181 RO

          In the order appealed from, the Administrator determined that  the
          main entry door lock, the  vestibule  door  lock  and  the  buzzer
          release mechanism were defective.  The Administrator directed  the
          restoration of these services and the reduction of the  stabilized
          rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that  the  order
          reduces the rent for deficiencies not mentioned in the  complaint;
          that the problem of a defective buzzer release mechanism is  vague
          and is a matter of routine maintenance; that  the  owner  was  not
          notified of the inspection date and  of  the  inspection  results;
          that only one tenant complained of the decrease  in  building-wide
          services;  and  that  the  address  of  the  subject  building  is
          incorrect.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that the petition should be denied but the  Administrator's  order
          should be modified to correct the address.

          A review of the complaint reveals that the tenant's description of 
          the main  lobby  door  being  open,  as  well  as  poor  lighting,
          muggings, and a lack of security sufficiently  put  the  owner  on
          notice of defects to the building's entrance doors, allowi g  non-
          residents to enter.  Upon receipt of the complaint, the owner  had
          an obligation to investigate the condition of the  entrance  doors
          and to repair any defects.  The physical inspection by  DHCR  four
          months after the complaint was filed confirmed  the  existence  of
          defective door locks and buzzer release mechanism and the  owner's
          failure to make these repairs warrants the rent reduction  ordered
          by the Administrator.

          The validity of the order is not affected by the  fact  that  only
          one tenant complained about building-wide conditions.  All tenants 
          are entitled to the continued  maintenance  of  required  building
          services and any tenant who files a complaint and requests a  rent
          reduction is entitled to a rent reduction based on a finding of  a
          failure to maintain a building-wide service. 

          Furthermore, the tenant's allegations in  the  original  complaint
          concerning the problems of building security is definitely  not  a
          matter  of  routine  maintenance  but  of   serious   deficiencies
          respecting the safety of the tenants and their property.

          As to the owner's contentions that it was entitled  to  notice  of
          the inspection date and the inspection results, it is not required 
          to inform an owner  of  an  inspection  date  (unless  the  tenant
          refused access, which is not an issue here) or to forward  a  copy
          of the inspection  report  to  the  owner  prior  to  the  order's
          issuance. As noted above, the owner was sufficiently  informed  of
          the defective conditions  as  alleged  in  the  original  tenant's
          complaint.  The inspection report  merely  verified  the  tenant's
          complaint.  (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 147 A.D. 2d 642, 
          538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 1989).






          FJ 110181 RO

          The owner is correct, however, in contending that the  address  of
          the subject building should be "208-70 Grand Central Parkway," not 
          the "208-76 Grand Central Parkway" as erroneously set forth in the 
          Administrator's order.  The Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that
          this error does not affect the validity of  the  order  since  the
          owner was notified of the correct address of the premises  in  the
          complaint.

          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 Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby  is,
          modified to reflect the correct address of  the  subject  premises
          but is affirmed in all other respects.

          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          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