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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FJ 630091 RO    
          SOCRATES PENA/ACTIVE MANAGEMENT                                      
                        COMPANY,                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EE 630058 B          
                                PETITIONER       PREMISES: 2381 Valentine Ave.
                                                           Bronx, New York


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on September 17, 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.

          Various tenants commenced this proceeding on May 9, 1990 by filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous 
          services in the subject building.

          A copy of the tenants' complaint was transmitted to the owner on May 
          30, 1990. The Administrator's file appears to contain no owner's 

          Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject building was 
          inspected on August 6, 1991 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed the 
          existence of defective conditions.

          Based on this on-site inspection, the Administrator determined the 
          following services not maintained: "door closing main entry, door 
          lock main entry" and "intercom." The Administrator directed the 
          restoration of these services and further ordered, a reduction of 
          the stabilized rent.

          In this petition for administrative review, the owner states that 

          FJ 630091-RO

          the main entry door and door lock are "repeatedly being broken by 
          the tenants themselves or their children"; that whenever the door is 
          broken, it is repaired "within a 24-hour period"; that this building 
          never had an intercom system; that if rent were increased, he is 
          willing to install an intercom system; and that some of the 
          complaining tenants have moved out.

          In answer to the petition, various tenants denied breaking the main 
          entry door and otherwise asserted that the building's security is 
          jeopardized by drug-dealing in front of the building, the lack of 
          intercom system and door lock, and the falling front doors. The 
          tenants further described the numerous defective conditions in their 
          own individual apartments.
          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be denied.

          The owner's petition does not make clear whether it is the owner's 
          contention that repairs had been made before the apartment was 
          inspected or before the order was issued, or whether the contention 
          is that repairs were made following the issuance of the Adminis- 
          trator's order.  If it is the former, then the owner's allegation is 
          belied by the report of the agency inspector.  If it is the latter, 
          then the Administrator's order reducing the rent was nevertheless 
          correct when issued.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner provided no evidence for the 
          contentions that the entry doors are "repeatedly being broken by the 
          tenants themselves or their children" and that whenever the door is 
          broken , it is repaired "within a 24-hour period." These unproven 
          contentions are not only insufficient reason to disturb the Adminis- 
          trator's order, but in the opinion of the Commissioner, is reason a 
          fortiori to affirm the Administrator's order. If these conditions 
          allegedly recur with such alacrity, the owner should be put on 
          notice to find a solution (e.g. main entry door with intercom and 
          other deterrent security systems) which would ensure that the 
          tenants are not made to suffer the continued lack of safety in this 
          The Commissioner also notes that the owner offered no proof for the 
          contention that the building never had an intercom system. Neither 
          did the owner raise this claim in the proceeding below, nor did the 
          owner submit a response or evidence to the effect before the 
          Administrator. In addition, as set forth above in detail, various 
          tenants strongly contested the owner's petition by denying the 
          owner's contentions in the petition and unequivocally stating that 
          the disrepair continues. The owner appears not to dispute the 
          tenant's answer.

          The Commissioner further finds irrelevant the owner's allegation 
          that the Administrator's order does not stand in view of the fact 
          that some of the complaining tenants have vacated. A finding of 

          decreased services for which a rent reduction is warranted remains 
          in effect for subsequent tenants until rent restoration is granted. 
          The validity of the Administrator's rent reduction order is not 
          affected by the owner's unsubstantiated allegation regarding changes 
          in the tenancies of the affected apartments.  Accordingly, copies of 
          this Order and Opinion are being mailed to the current residents of 
          the apartments involved.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site physical inspection conducted on August 6, 1991; and 
          that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the owner had failed 
          to maintain services. Moreover, the owner had ample oppurtunity from 
          the May 30, 1990 transmittal of the tenants' complaint until the 
          September 17, 1991 issuance of the Administrator's order to 
          investigate the tenants' complaint and to make the necessary 
          repairs; but the owner failed to do so.

          The various tenants who answered the owner's petition are advised to 
          file new applications for a rent reduction based on decreased 
          services in their individual apartments, because the order appealed 
          from is a rent reduction order based on a building-wide decrease of 

          This Order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to file the appropriate application with the Division for a 
          restoration of rents based upon the restoration of services,  if the 
          facts so warrant.

          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, affirmed.


                                          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