FL 130154-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.: FL 130154 RO

     VRETTOS REALTY COMPANY             DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: EG 130123 B
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
     On December 23, 1991, the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  November 26,  1991.  The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations located at 45-59 45th  Street,  Woodside,
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.

      This proceeding was commenced when tenants of 25 of the  51
apartments  in the subject building joined in filing a  Statement
of  Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide Services  on  July  3,
1990 wherein they alleged the following services deficiencies:

          1.   Water   back-up   in  basement   causes   mosquito
               infestation
          
          2.   Vermin infestation throughout building
          
          3.   Front  entrance door opens too easily;  inadequate
               security
          
          4.   Defective intercoms
          
          5.   Dirty public areas
          
          6.   Incinerators locked so garbage must be taken out
          
          7.   Garbage area in yard filthy
          
          8.   Inadequate hall lighting
          
          9.   No adequate roof fire door
          
         10.   Walls  throughout building dirty and  in  need  of
               painting
     
         11.   Water leaks in ceilings
     
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
September 12, 1990 and stated that the basement was kept clean by
the  building  superintendent,  that  an  exterminator  is  under
contract to correct any problems with infestation, that the front
entrance  door  is in good working order, that  the  intercom  is
serviced  when  necessary, that the incinerators have  been  shut
down  for  30  years but the garbage is taken  downstairs  to  be
deposited  in  large  containers for  later  disposal,  that  the
building  contains fluorescent lighting, that the roof door  area
is  properly  maintained, that the public areas were  painted  in
1988  and that the roof had been repaired.  The owner also stated
that  many of the complaining tenants did not, in fact, desire  a
rent  reduction  and  submitted a copy of a statement  signed  by
eleven  tenants  stating that they did not know  what  they  were
signing  when  they  signed the complaint.   Finally,  the  owner
submitted  signed work orders, from various tenants,  which  were
offered to show that repairs are made when necessary.

      In a letter to the Administrator dated October 22, 1990,  a
representative from the Commission on Human Rights,  Neighborhood
Stabilization Program, advised that certain tenants were  coerced
by  the owner into withdrawing their names from the complaint and
wished to be reinstated

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

          1.   Evidence of accumulation of rubbish and foul  odor
               in basement
          
          2.   Evidence  of  roach  and  rodent  infestation   in
               basement
          
          3.   Public areas and lobby require cleaning
          4.   Roof door not fire-proof
          
          5.   Sixth floor ceiling waterstained
          
The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.   Evidence  of trash disposal/removal service  being
               maintained
          
          2.   Vestibule door is self-closing and self-locking
          
          3.   No   evidence  of  water  seepage/accumulation  in
               basement
          
          4.   Intercom system operative
          
          5.   Adequate lights throughout public areas
          
The  Administrator issued the order here under review on November
26,  1991.  Rent controlled tenants were granted a rent reduction
of  $22.00  per month and rent stabilized tenants were granted  a
rent  reduction  of  the most recent guideline  adjustment.   The
reduction for rent stabilized tenants was effective September  1,
1990.

     On appeal the owner states that "There is no rubbish or foul
odor in the basement.  There is no roach or rodent infestation in
the basement. Public areas and lobby are clean.  The roof door is
fireproof.  The sixth floor ceiling is not waterstained."

      One tenant filed a response on February 13, 1992 and stated
an objection to the petition based on mouse infestation.

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

      The owner's statement in the petition is unsupported by any
evidence  to  rebut the inspector's report.  Nor does  the  owner
state  when the conditions have been corrected.  If the owner  is
claiming  that the conditions did not exist at the  time  of  the
inspection,  than  it is settled that the inspector's  report  is
entitled to more probative weight than the statements of a  party
to  the proceeding.  If the owner is claiming that the conditions
have been subsequently corrected, then the appropriate remedy  is
to  file  for rent restoration.  The order here under  review  is
affirmed.

      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.

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