FK 530308 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.: FK 530308 RO

    MAUREEN SCHLATTER                   DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: CK 530037 B
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On November 25, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  October  22,  1991.  The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations  located at 98  Morningside  Avenue,  New
York,  N.Y.   The  Administrator  ordered  a  building-wide  rent
reduction for failure to maintain required services.

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

      The  tenants commenced this proceeding on November 14, 1988
by  filing  a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide
Services    wherein   they   alleged   the   following   services
deficiencies:

          1.   Broken entrance steps
          
          2.   Various intercoms not working
          
          3.   Elevator malfunctioning
          
          4.   Fire escapes in need of painting
          
          5.   Defective  building  gutters  causing   leaks   in
               various apartments
          
          6.   Asbestos in basement causing fumes in building
          
          7.   Roof leaking
          
          8.   Garbage  put outside needs to be stored in  better
               manner
          
          9.   Steps  on  some  floors  coming  apart;  banisters
               broken
          
         10.   Missing tiles in lobby floor
     
         11.   Entrance gates broken
     
         12.   Lights by elevator in need of repair
     
         13.   Defective plumbing
     
         14.   Hallway walls crumbling and plaster falling down
     
         15.   Brown building water
     
         16.   Front entrance door lock makes it difficult to get
               into lobby
     
         17.   Dirty court yard
     
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded  an  opportunity to respond. The owner's agent  filed  a
response  on  December 19, 1988 and stated that it  had  recently
become  the managing agent for the building.  The owner requested
an extension of time to investigate and respond to the complaint.
No further response was ever received.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
building.  The inspection was conducted on May 3, 1989  and  June
22, 1989 and revealed the following:

          1.   Building  entrance  has  some  broken  steps   and
               missing pillars
          
          2.   Elevator switch board panel cannot be closed
          
          3.   Hallway tiles broken and missing
          
The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.   Intercom
          
          2.   Elevator working properly
          
          3.   Fire escapes painted
          
          4.   No  evidence  of  basement  fumes,  leaking  roof,
               improper   garbage  disposal,  defective   lights,
               building  entrance  door  lock,  defective  drain,
               rusty   water,  defective  walls,  and   defective
               banisters and steps in hallways
          
      The  Administrator issued the order here  under  review  on
September  21,  1989 and ordered a rent reduction  of  $6.00  per
month for rent controlled tenants and a guideline adjustment  for
rent  stabilized tenants.  No petition for administrative  review
of  that order was filed.  Subsequently, the Administrator issued
an  amended order on October 22, 1991.  That order corrected  the
status of one of the tenants, as set forth in the original order,
to  reflect the fact that the tenant was rent controlled  and  to
order  a rent reduction of $6.00 per month for that tenant.   The
effective  date of the Administrator's order was changed  to  now
read  November  1,  1991.  In all other respects  the  order  was
affirmed.

      On  appeal  the owner submits a statement from one  tenant,
dated  April 2, 1991, which states that repairs have  been  made.
The  owner also submitted a letter, issued by the DHCR Compliance
Unit  and  dated May 22, 1991 in which the tenants  were  advised
that,  sine they had informed the Division that repairs had  been
made, the Division considered the case to be closed.

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

      It  is noted that since the owner did not appeal the  order
issued  on  September  21, 1989 that became  a  final  order  and
determination that is no longer subject to review.   The  owner's
petition is timely only as to the amended order issued on October
22,  1991 to correct the status of apartment No. 62.  The amended
order  did  not order a second rent reduction.  As to that  order
the  owner has not submitted any evidence to rebut the report  of
the  DHCR  inspector.  That report stated that there  were  three
different building-wide services defects which were the basis for
the rent reduction.  The owner did not supply any evidence before
the Administrator, although given an opportunity to do so.  It is
settled  that  the  report of the inspector is entitled  to  more
probative weight than the unsupported allegations of a  party  to
the  proceeding.   The Administrator was correct  in  ordering  a
building-wide rent reduction based on the inspector's report. The
statements submitted to the Commissioner as part of the  petition
are  all dated after the order here under review was issued.  The
Compliance  Unit clearly informed the owner that the  rent  would
not  be  restored  until after the owner's application  for  rent
restoration was granted.  The Commissioner notes that  the  owner
filed  for  rent restoration and that application was  denied  on
February 8, 1991 (see Docket No. DL 530153 OR).  Since the  owner
has  stated  no  basis  on which to overturn the  Administrator's
order that order is, accordingly, affirmed.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
and Rent and Eviction Regulations 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.

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