Docket Number: FB-430103-RO/FB-410331-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NOS.: FB 430103-RO
: FB 410331-RO
655 SECOND AVE. CO./
ALLEN ABBANI, : DRO DOCKET NO.: DJ 430082-B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On February 12, 1991, the above-named owner filed timely Petitions
for Administrative Review of an order issued on January 10, 1991
concerning t e housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
The petitions are consolidated because they involve common issues of
law and fact.
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.
On October 30, 1989, various tenants commenced this proceeding by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the building.
In its answer filed on December 4, 1989 and October 31, 1990, the
owner denied the allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint and
asserted that "all services have been maintained and there has been
no reduction in services."
Thereafter on December 7, 1990, an inspection of the building was
conducted by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that "alarm on the first
floor stairway door was missing, has been removed from and door
On January 10, 1991, the Administrator issued the order appealed
from, finding only that the "alarm on the first floor stairwell door
has been removed," directing restoration of this service and
ordering a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In this consolidated petition by the owner, the petitioner states in
substance that the alarm was installed, not as a required service
for the tenant, but "to secure the landlords' valuable mechanical
systems in the basement." The owner also stated that it has
restored this service and has applied for rent restoration.
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
Docket Number: FB-510090-RO
contention that repairs had been made before the apartment was
inspected or the order was issued, or whether the contention is that
repairs were made following the issuance of the Rent Administrator'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 Rent Administrator's order reducing the rent was nevertheless
correct when issued, and this order is issued without prejudice to
the owner filing an application for restoration of services.
As to the owner's contention that the alarm was installed "to secure
the landlords' valuable mechanical systems in the basement," the
Commissioner notes such contention unsubstantiated on appeal and not
raised before the Administrator below. Even if the owner's
contention is accepted, the security of the mechanical systems in
the basement is also for the common good of all tenants in the
building. In addition, the tenants denied the owner's contention by
responding that the "alarm system on stairwell has been
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.