STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 GH-230098 RO
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S        
                                                 DOCKET NO.:
                                                 EE 230127 B              
               SSBG MANAGEMENT             
               C/O STEVE HAVIARAS                 

                              PETITIONER      : 


               On August 5, 1992, the above-named petitioner owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          July 2, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 750 Ocean 
          Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator determined 
          the tenants' complaint of reductions of services building-wide 
          filed in May 1990.

               The challenged order reduced the tenants' rents based on the 
          results of inspections conducted on March 20 and June 17, 1992 that 
          confirmed the continued existence of several of the conditions 
          cited in the tenants' complaint.  The June 17, 1992 inspection 
          report reflected that two elevators were not working at the time of 
          inspection (the tenants had complained that the elevators were 
          frequently broken); that there were water leaks and peeling paint 
          and plaster on the top floor; that janitorial services were 
          inadequate; that hallway floors and stairs were dirty; and that 
          wiring was exposed in the rear yard.  Other complaints raised by 
          the tenants were either unsubstantiated, or found to have been 
          addressed between the dates of the two inspections. 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GH-230098RO

               On appeal, the owner contends that there was no rational basis 
          to sustain findings that the owner had failed to maintain required 
          services for the years prior to the inspection and that the March 
          and June 1992 inspections were inadequate to reveal conditions that 
          existed in 1990.  At most, the owner reasons, the rents should have 
          been reduced only back to the date of the inspection, as there was 
          no evidence that the services were reduced prior to that date.  

               One tenant responded, pointing to correspondence sent to the 
          owner by a local tenants' advocacy group on behalf of the tenants, 
          between January 1990 and August 1991, citing most of the conditions 
          that provided the bases for the rent reductions. 

               The owner argues that because the tenants alleged numerous 
          services complaints in an indiscriminate shotgun approach, they 
          were not credible.  However, the March 20, 1992 inspection 
          confirmed several of the most serious complaints.  The owner 
          belatedly addressed some of the conditions only after service of 
          notice of the results of the March 20, 1992 inspection. 

               The owner's assertion that the March and June 1992 inspections 
          were not close enough to the tenants' complaint to verify the 
          tenants' allegations neglects the owner's own assurances in June 
          1990 that several items that required repairs had been corrected 
          and that services were being maintained during the pendency of the 
          proceedings below, namely mailboxes, the roof and the elevators.  
          The fact that the roof and elevator defects were observed 
          thereafter reflects that repairs, if made, were not completed in a 
          workmanlike manner and further confirms the tenants' complaint. 

               The owner also contends that some of the conditions enumerated 
          in the rent reduction order, particularly lack of elevator service 
          and lack of maintenance and janitorial services, did not constitute 
          service reductions, but were conditions requiring routine 
          maintenance.  In the opinion of the Commissioner, an item of normal 
          maintenance would have been corrected within the two years.  While 
          the owner may have undertaken repairs and maintenance, they appear 
          to have been inadequate to prevent the recurrence of the conditions 
          upon which the rent abatements were predicated.    

               The March 20, 1992 inspection showed that elevator service was 
          adequate.  However, on June 17, 1992 the elevators were found to be 
          inoperative at the time of inspection.  The inspection confirmed 
          the tenants' claim of elevator service interruptions, and 
          inadequate repairs.  The Rent Administrator, therefore, properly 
          concluded that the service decreases warranted rent abatements.    

               With regard to the condition of the roof leak and the owner's 
          argument that only a limited number of tenants were affected, the 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GH-230098RO

          Commissioner notes that the inspector reported evidence of water 
          damage in the public areas on the top floor ceilings of both wings 
          of the building, indicating a defective roof causing water seepage.  

               The owner points out that the rear yard exposed wires were not 
          cited in the tenants' complaint.  The lack of notice of the 
          condition precludes a rent reduction based on this condition.  The 
          Administrator's order is amended to delete this condition as a 
          basis for the rent reduction, or as condition required to be 
          corrected in order to be eligible for rent restoration.  However, 
          the owner is cautioned to remedy the problem.  Failure to do so may 
          subject the owner to new sanctions upon the filing of a proper 
          complaint by the tenants.     

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be denied and that the 
          Administrator's order be affirmed, as modified above. 


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          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