ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630063 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 630063 RO 
           TWO MARION REALTY CO./ BY MICHAEL                             
                                  SCHWARTZ,      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S     
                                  AGENT          DOCKET NO.:              
                                                 ED 630018 B
                                                  
                                 PETITIONER      PREMISES: 2557 Marion Ave.  
                                                           Bronx, NY
                                              :                 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                  IN PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO ADMINISTRATOR

               On October 16, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on September 
          16, 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.               

               This proceeding was commenced on April 4, 1990 when 34 tenants 
          of the 54 apartments in the building joined in filing a complaint 
          alleging a failure to maintain numerous building-wide services. The 
          complaint encompassed four separate two-sided complaint forms, some 
          of which were filled out on one side only.

               The complaint was served on the law firm identified as the 
          owner by the tenants. 

               An answer to the complaint was received by the Division on May 
          3, 1990.  The answer specifically addressed the allegations on two 
          of the four complaint forms, and advised the Administrator that the 
          owner is not represented by a law firm in this proceeding.

               On February 20, 1991, the owner and tenants were asked by the 
          Administrator to submit additional information regarding the 
          security mirrors and lobby furniture that the tenants alleged had 
          been removed.














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630063 RO

               One tenant representative answered and stated that three 
          mirrors were removed in June 1988 and two tables, two chairs, and 
          two lamps were removed from the lobby in April 1989.   

               A physical inspection of the building on April 5, 1991 
          revealed that the public areas including the roof landing were 
          dirty and that there was no lobby furniture.

               Based on this inspection the Administrator ordered a building- 
          wide rent reduction of a guideline for all rent stabilized tenants 
          who signed the complaint and $14.00 per month for all rent 
          controlled tenants in the building.

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts 
          that it had no prior notice of this proceeding, that the public 
          areas and roof landing are not dirty and even if they are this is 
          a matter of routine maintenance that does not warrant a rent cut, 
          that the lobby furniture formerly in the lobby belonged to the 
          adjacent doctor's office and was removed by the doctor when he 
          relocated, and that there were never three security mirrors but 
          only one decorative mirror, the removal of which does not warrant 
          a rent reduction. 

               One tenant answered the petition and stated that services had 
          not been restored.

               After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that this proceeding should be 
          remanded for further investigation.

               From a careful examination of the record in this proceeding, 
          it is not certain that the owner had notice of the portion of the 
          tenants' complaint regarding the lobby furniture and safety 
          mirrors.  These items appear on a separate complaint form that it 
          not signed or dated and consists only of Side Two of the form.  
          Since the owner's answer specifically addressed each and every 
          listed item on Sides One and Two of two other complaint forms, it 
          is probable that the additional sheets were not sent to the owner.  
          Because of the uncertainties involved, the Commissioner deems it 
          appropriate to remand this proceeding to the Administrator for 
          service of the complete complaint on the owner. All submissions by 
          both parties regarding the security mirrors and lobby furniture 
          should be served on the opposing side with adequate opportunity for 
          response.  If necessary, a hearing should be held to resolve any 
          factual disputes as to what lobby amenities were provided by the 





          owner (not a third party) on the applicable base date.  Pending 
          redetermination of this issue by the Administrator, the lobby 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 630063 RO

          furniture and security mirrors are deleted as bases for the rent 
          reduction and the $9.00 per month rent reduction for rent 
          controlled tenants for these items is revoked.  If it is determined 
          on remand that these are required services, a new rent reduction 
          will be ordered effective the first of the month following service 
          of the complaint on the owner.  

               The other aspect of the Administrator's order, regarding dirty 
          public areas including the roof landing is affirmed and the rent 
          reductions for this item remains in effect. 

               The tenants complained of filthy hallways and staircases and 
          the roof landing being strewn with excrement, eating utensils, and 
          drug paraphernalia.  Although the owner responded that the public 
          areas are cleaned by building personnel and the top landings are 
          inspected daily, the inspection revealed public areas in need of 
          sweeping and mopping.  Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization 
          Code requires DHCR to reduce the rent, upon application by tenants, 
          where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required 
          services.  Similarly, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations authorizes a rent reduction in an amount determined by 
          the discretion of the Administrator based on a finding of failure 
          to maintain essential services.   

               Required or essential services are defined by Sections 
          2520.6(r) and 2200.3(b) to include repairs, maintenance, janitorial 
          services and removal of refuse.  Based on the inspector's 
          verification of this portion of the tenants' complaint, the rent 
          reduction ordered by the Administrator was warranted. 

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

               ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is granted 
          in part to the extent of revoking the portion of the order reducing 
          rents for lobby furniture and security mirrors and remanding the 
          proceeding to the Administrator for further investigation of 
          whether these items are required to be provided.  All other aspects 
          of the Administrator's order are affirmed.

          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