FK 530295 RO
                        STATE OF NEW YORK
                           GERTZ PLAZA
                     92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                     JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FK 530295 RO

                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: EK 530092 B

      On November 13, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  October  9,  1991.   The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations located at 56 Fort  Washington  Ave.  New
York, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a building-wide rent
reduction for failure to maintain required or essential services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  in  this

     The tenants commenced this proceeding on November 9, 1990 by
filing  a  Statement  of Complaint of Decrease  in  Building-Wide
Services.  The following services defects were complained of:

          1.   Elevator continually out of service
          2.   Garbage bags left in public areas
          3.   Leaky roof
          4.   Defective intercom system
          5.   Front entrance door open; lock defective
          6.   No exterminator services
          7.   Failure to provide adequate heat/hot water
          8.   Inadequate smoke detectors
          9.   Broken windows
         10.   Lack of washing machines and dryers in basement
The tenants claimed that the owner had been notified of all these
conditions.   A rent reduction was requested.  The complaint  was
served on the owner and an opportunity to respond was afforded.

      The Administrator investigated the issue of whether laundry
facilities  were  required  base date  services  at  the  subject
building.   Notices  dated April 4, 1991, stating  this  inquiry,
were sent to both parties.

      The  owner  filed a response on April 22, 1991  wherein  it
stated  that,  according to its records,  there were  no  laundry
facilities ever in existence at the building.  The owner  further
stated  that  the public areas would be cleared of  debris,  that
estimates would be obtained for the repair of the roof, and  that
the  bulkhead area and sixth floor walls and ceilings with  water
stains and peeling paint and plaster would be repaired.

      The  tenants filed a reply on April 19, 1991.  They  stated
that  there  were  two  washing machines and  one  dryer  in  the
basement up until six years ago.  However, since that time, there
were no machines and the part of the basement that was used as  a
laundry   room  was  locked  and  inaccessible  to  the  tenants.
Thirty-three tenants attested to these statements.

      The  subject building was physically inspected  by  a  DHCR
employee  on two occasions, May 8, 1991 and June 28,  1991.   The
inspections revealed the following:

          1.   Defective roof
          2.   Public   areas,  including  bulkhead  area  dirty;
               strewn  garbage  in lobby and fifth  floor  public
          3.   Laundry room service discontinued
The  inspector  also  reported that the following  services  were

          1.   Elevator operative
          2.   Access available to basement
          3.   Entrance door operative
          4.   No evidence of vermin infestation in public areas.
      The  Administrator issued the order here  under  review  on
October 9, 1991 wherein the inspector's report was set forth. The
Administrator directed the tenants to file individual  complaints
regarding  defective  windows  and intercom.   The  Administrator
further  directed the tenants to file complaints regarding  smoke
detector  problems with the New York City Department  of  Health.
Finally, the Administrator stated that heat complaints should  be
filed  during the heating season and hot water complaints  should
be filed using the appropriate form.  The Administrator ordered a
rent reduction for all rent regulated tenants.

      On  appeal the owner states that the roof has been repaired
and that any leak was minor and caused no damage.  The owner also
states that the public areas are cleaned on a daily basis by  the
superintendent but that some tenants may have left garbage in the
halls.   Finally, the owner repeats its contention to the  effect
that  laundry  service  is  not one  to  which  the  tenants  are

      Five  tenants filed responses to the petition.  All  stated
that  services were not being maintained and requested  that  the
Administrator's order be affirmed.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be

      The  owner's first two statements are at variance with  the
report of the inspector which described bulging tar paper as well
as  peeling  paint and plaster and water stains in  the  bulkhead
area.   At both inspections, dirty public areas were also  found.
It  is  settled that such a report is entitled to more  probative
weight  than  the  unsupported allegations  of  a  party  to  the
proceeding.   The  Commissioner  notes  that  two  tenants  filed
responses to the petition wherein they stated that the roof still
leaks.   Four tenants stated that the public areas are  still  in
need of cleaning.

       With  regard  to  the  issue  of  the  laundry  room,  the
Commissioner  finds  that, although the  owner  was  given  ample
opportunity to submit documentation as to whether such facilities
were  base date services, the only submission was a statement  to
the effect that based on a check of its records dating from 1987,
there  had  not  been  such facilities in  the  building.     The
Commissioner finds this response to be insufficient to rebut  the
statements  by  the  tenants that laundry  room  facilities  were
provided  on the base date.  The Commissioner notes that  one  of
the  six  responses  to  the  petition specifically  states  that
laundry facilities were available until six years ago.  Based  on
a  preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator  properly found that a laundry room is  a  required
service  that is not being maintained for which a rent  reduction
is warranted.  The order here under review is affirmed.

      The  owner may file for rent restoration when all  services
have been fully restored.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
and Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City it is

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,
denied  and that the Rent 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