FK 420468-RT ET. AL.
                                
                        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
APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:

                                        FK 420468 RT FK 410306 RT
                                        FK 410307 RT FK 420308 RT
                                        FK 420309 RT FK 410310 RT
                                        FK 420311 RT FK 410312 RT
                                        FK 410313 RT FK 430363 RT
     VARIOUS TENANTS OF                 FK 410364 RT FK 410365 RT
     905 WEST END AVENUE                FK 420366 RT FK 420368 RT
                                        FK 420369 RT FK 410370 RT
                                        FK 420371 RT FK 420372 RT
                                        FK 420373 RT FK 420374 RT
                                        FK 420469 RT FK 420470 RT
                                        FK 410471 RT

                                        DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: EL 430059 B
                       PETITIONERS
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
     The above entitled proceedings have been consolidated by the
Commissioner as all contain common issues of law and fact.

      The  petitioner-tenants of the above  entitled  proceedings
filed timely Petitions for Administrative Review against an order
of  the  Rent  Administrator issued October 8,  1991.  The  order
concerned  housing accommodations known as Apts. 104, 1,  4,  32,
44, 51, 82, 53, 41, 64, 142, 102, 112, 21, 22, 83, 114, 115, 122,
141, 72, 31 and 52 located at 905 West End Avenue, New York, N.Y.
The   Administrator  denied  the  tenants'  application   for   a
building-wide  rent  reduction  based  on  failure  to   maintain
required services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues raised  by  these
appeals.
      The  tenants commenced this proceeding on December 12, 1990
by  filing  a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide
Services    wherein   they   alleged   the   following   services
deficiencies:

          1.   Frequent lack of elevator service of both main and
               service elevator which provides the only means  of
               access to the basement laundry facilities
          
          2.   Lack  of maintenance of window exteriors and  many
               windows in need of repair
          
          3.   Hot water boiler breakdowns especially in winter
          
          4.   Fire escapes not maintained
          
          5.   Fraying fire hoses
          
          6.   Fire  doors,  fire  related  apartment  doors  and
               exterior rear entrance doors not maintained and in
               need  of  replacement; fire doors are not properly
               closed
          
          7.   Sporadic  water pressure; periodic dirty  unusable
               water;  sporadic water temperature;  scalding  hot
               water
          
          8.   Unresolved interior plumbing problems
          
          9.   Inoperative or defective radiators
          
         10.   Outdated electrical wiring
     
         11.   Falling plaster in apartments and hallways due  to
               leaks
     
         12.   Water seepage from exterior into apartments
     
         13.   Roof drainage system not functioning
     
         14.   Work  performed by outside contractors not  up  to
               quality standards
     
         15.   Access  to roof restricted, reducing one means  of
               egress in case of emergency
     
The tenants further stated that there was no ongoing schedule  of
preventive  maintenance and, accordingly, building equipment  was
being  allowed  to  deteriorate to the  point  where  replacement
rather than repair was required.

      On  May  1, 1991 the tenants filed an additional  complaint
wherein  they  stated that a labor dispute  had  resulted  in  an
interruption in maintenance of the building for which the tenants
were   seeking   compensation.   This   complaint   was   ordered
consolidated with the December 12, 1990 complaint with Docket No.
EL 430059 B assigned to both.

      The  owner  was  served with a copy of the  complaints  and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner's initial response,
filed  on  January 11, 1991, requested an extension  of  time  to
answer.  On February 14, 1991 the owner, through counsel, filed a
response.   In that response the owner stated its willingness  to
maintain   all   required   services   and   described    various
pre-complaint    efforts    to   correct    building    problems.
Specifically,  the  owner annexed to the response  the  following
documents:  letter  from elevator maintenance  company  regarding
modernization,  copy of engineer inspection report  attesting  to
need  for  elevator modernization, copy of bid accepted by  owner
for   such  modernization,  copy  of  window  inspection   report
attesting  to  need for window replacement, copy of contract  for
treatment  of water tank, copy of electrical re-wiring  contract,
and  copy of facade restoration report attesting to need for work
on exterior of building.

      On  February  20, 1991 the owner provided the Administrator
with a copy of a contract for elevator modernization entered into
between  itself and a licensed contractor.  On March 7, 1991  the
owner  provided  the Administrator with copies of  contracts  for
window replacement and facade restoration.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
subject  apartment.  The inspection was conducted  on  April  16,
1991 and revealed the following:

          1.   Water accumulation observed in roof areas
          
     The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.   Public area windows in satisfactory condition
          
          2.   Public areas clean
          
          3.   No evidence of garbage accumulation
          
          4.   Elevators operative and provide access to  laundry
               room
          
          5.   No evidence of defective fire escapes
          
          6.   No  evidence of leaks, water seepage,  or  peeling
               paint and plaster in the public areas
          
          7.   Access to roof available in case of emergency
          
          8.   Stairway doors self-closing
          
     On May 17, 1991 the Administrator sent a notice to the owner
wherein  the  owner  was  requested to  supply  documentation  to
indicate that the cause of the water accumulation on the roof had
been  cured.   The Administrator noted that, at the time  of  the
inspection,  painting  was  in progress  and  the  cause  of  the
accumulation could not be ascertained.  On June 5, 1991 and  June
14,  1991 the owner supplied statements by contractors indicating
that  the roof was in good condition and the drainage system  was
operating properly.

      A second inspection was conducted on August 16, 1991.  Said
inspection  again failed to confirm any of the defects complained
of  and  noted that the roof drainage condition had  indeed  been
repaired.

      The  Administrator issued the order here under  review   on
October  8,  1991.  After setting out the inspector's report  the
Administrator  noted the following: that apartment  issues  would
have  to  be  the  subject  of  individual  complaints  for  rent
reduction,  that any fire equipment-related complaint  should  be
addressed to the fire department, that complaints regarding dirty
water should be addressed to the New York City Health Department,
that complaints of outdated electrical wiring should be addressed
to  the  New York City Department Of Buildings, that the evidence
indicated  that  problems with general building maintenance  were
caused  by  a strike by building employees, that said strike  had
ended  and  that the tenants were free to pursue any  claims  for
compensation  for  interrupted services in a court  of  competent
jurisdiction.

       Twenty-three   tenant's  have  filed  appeals   from   the
Administrator's  order of denial.  Said appeals  have  been  duly
consolidated, as stated above.  The tenants each state  that  the
public  area windows are not in satisfactory condition, that  the
roof  drainage  is  not satisfactory, that the public  areas  are
minimally  cleaned  and  maintained,  that  garbage  accumulation
exists  and  the  public areas are not free of debris,  that  the
elevators  are not always operative, that the fire  escapes  have
been found to be defective by the City of New York, that the roof
is accessible but an alarm sounds when the door is open, that the
fire  door on the first floor is always kept open by a door stop,
and  that  the  Administrator erred in referring the  tenants  to
other agencies for processing of certain of their complaints. The
tenants of Apartments 31 and 52 offered photographs purporting to
show  the existence of broken public area windows. The tenant  of
Apartment  141  offered  photographs  purporting  to   show   the
existence  of  peeling paint and plaster on the landings  between
the  9th and 10th, 10th and 11th and 11th and 12th floors as well
as  the  existence of broken public area windows.  The tenant  of
Apartment  41 submitted the following items: a list  of  building
code  violations then pending before the New York City Department
of  Housing Preservation and Development, a diary of instances of
lack  of  elevator service, and a finding by the  New  York  City
Environmental  Control Board, dated January 18,  1991,  that  the
owner had failed to maintain the elevator.

     The owner did not file responses to the petitions.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the opinion that the  petitions  should  be
denied.

     The tenants' petitions are a challenge to the reports of the
DHCR  inspectors.  Numerous prior orders of the Commissioner have
held that such reports are entitled to more probative weight than
the  allegations  of parties to the proceeding.   The  record  is
clear  that  the  tenants'  numerous complaints  were  thoroughly
investigated  by DHCR inspectors on two occasions several  months
apart  and  revealed  no  diminution in  building-wide  services.
Therefore,  the  Administrator was correct in  finding  that  the
tenants' complaint should be denied.

      The  Commissioner notes that the tenants did  not  complain
about peeling paint and plaster on the stairway landings and  may
not raise this issue for the first time on appeal.  The inspector
specifically  found  no defects in the condition  of  the  public
hallway  walls.   As for access to the roof, the  tenants  merely
complained  that  such  access  was  not  available  in  case  of
emergency  and  the inspector found that it was.  Access  to  the
roof for other purposes was not in issue.

      The tenants have also alleged that the Administrator should
not  have  directed  all  other  complaints  to  the  appropriate
agencies  or  courts of competent jurisdiction.  The Commissioner
finds  that the Administrator was correct in so directing because
these  agencies have particular expertise in the matters involved
and  can order appropriate remedies.  The Administrator was  also
correct  in  advising  the tenants to file individual  complaints
with regard to apartment services deficiencies so that conditions
within the individual apartments affected can be investigated and
rent  reductions  ordered, if warranted, only for  those  tenants
whose  apartments require repair.  A building-wide rent reduction
is  appropriate only for conditions in public areas and  no  such
conditions were noted by the inspectors.  Since the tenants  have
not advanced any grounds on which to overturn or modify the order
here under review, that order is affirmed.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
it is

      ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby  are,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same
hereby is, 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