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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 FJ 630059 RO 
                                                 DISTRICT RENT            
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EE 630063 B
                 JOHN HOLWELL                            
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES: 
                                                 2297 Sedgwick Ave., 
                              PETITIONER      :  Bronx, NY 


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

               Four tenants commenced this proceeding on May 18, 1990 by 
          filing separate complaints alleging a decrease in building-wide  
          services.  One of the tenants (Apt. # 1S) complained of inadequate 
          hot water and security (defective front door).  The other three 
          tenants each alleged deficient hot water services.  

               In his answer filed on June 14, 1990, the owner denied that 
          the hot water service is inadequate and otherwise asserted that the 
          front door is in the process of being repaired and the repairs 
          would be completed shortly.  

               Thereafter, the subject building was physically inspected on 
          August 19, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported that the 
          building entrance door is not secure, with a broken cylinder and 
          missing parts in the lock; and that the vestibule door is not 
          secure, with the door lock missing parts and not operating.

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630059 RO

               In the order appealed herein, the Administrator reduced the 
          stabilized rent of the four tenants who filed complaints, citing 
          the "Door Lock Vestibule" as a service not being maintained.  

               In this petition, the owner, through counsel, contends that 
          the owner "completely replaced the building's security (intercom) 
          system including a new electric door strike shortly after the 
          submission of this answer."  The owner submitted a copy of a 
          contract executed on June 14, 1990 along with a copy of a cancelled 
          check indicating payment of a deposit.  The owner also contends 
          that the order is defective because it does not state the basis for 
          the finding of decreased services.  If the basis of the order is an 
          inspection, the petitioner argues that DHCR should have informed 
          the owner of the results of the inspection and given the owner an 
          opportunity to repair.  If the order is based on a default, the 
          owner refers to the answer filed in June 1990.  The owner also 
          asserts that because only one tenant complained of building 
          security, no other stabilized tenant should qualify for a rent 

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the petition should be granted in part and the 
          Administrator's order should be modified.

               Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to 
          order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, where it is 
          found that the owner has failed to maintain required services.  
          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance. 

               A review of the record in this case reveals that one tenant 
          (Apt. # 1S) complained of inadequate building security and the 
          physical inspection confirmed that the locks on the building 
          entrance doors were not secure.  Based on that finding, a rent 
          reduction was warranted.   

               The Commissioner agrees, however, that the rent reduction 
          should apply only to the one tenant who complained about this 
          condition.  The other tenants who complained only about inadequate 
          hot water, which was processed in a separate proceeding (EE 630066 
          HW) and not confirmed by a physical inspection, should not get a 
          rent reduction for the defective door lock condition.

               The other objections raised by the owner are without merit.  
          The owner asserts that the entire entrance door was replaced 
          shortly after receipt of the complaint and that any defect that may 
          have been found in a subsequent inspection is a new condition that 
          was probably tenant-caused.  However, no evidence of repairs was 

          submitted to the Administrator.  Evidence submitted for the first 
          time with the petition is beyond the scope of review of this 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630059 RO

          administrative appeal.  In any event, a review of the proposed 
          contract submitted by the owner with the petition refers to the 
          installation of an intercom which does not necessarily indicate 
          that the door lock was repaired.   

               The tenant of Apt. 1S specifically complained about a 
          defective cylinder in the door lock.  This adequately put the owner 
          on notice of the condition requiring repair.  It is not, and has 
          not been, DHCR's policy to notify owners in every case of the 
          results of physical inspections and the courts have affirmed the 
          Division's position that a copy of the inspection report is not 
          required to be served on the owner.  (Empress Manor Apartments v. 
          NYSDHCR, 538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642, February 21, 1989.) 

               The order states that it is based on a complete review of the 
          record.  Since the record includes the owner's answer to the 
          complaint as well as a physical inspection, there is adequate 
          substantiation for the decision that was rendered to order a rent 
          reduction for Apt. 1S for the defective vestibule door lock.  The  
          rent reduction for the three other apartments (1N, 3S, and 4S) is 
          revoked.  Any rent arrears due as a result of this order may be 
          paid off in 12 equal monthly installments. 

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

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted in part and the Administrator's order be and the same 
          hereby is modified to revoke the rent reductions for Apts. 1N, 3S 
          and 4S but not for Apt. 1S.


                                          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