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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                   RICHARD R. BILLER,     
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     FG130045B 


          On September 21, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          August 25, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 47-10 Laurel Hill Boulevard, Queens, 
          New York, wherein the Administrator determined the complaints by 
          two tenants of decreases of various building-wide services.

          The tenants commenced these proceedings by filing several indi- 
          vidual service decrease complaints in June 1991.  They were con- 
          solidated and assigned the above-referenced docket number.  The 
          tenants also alleged that there were violations of various City 
          ordinances and that there were judicial proceedings involving the 
          owner and one of the tenants.  In support, the tenants submitted 
          numerous photographs and various documents.

          The tenants complained, variously, of unsanitary conditions due to 
          the improper, inadequate and untimely removal of refuse, debris and 
          animal droppings from the grounds and public areas; insufficient 
          janitorial services and staff, in that the resident superintendent 
          was not available a substantial amount of the time, and that some 
          of the functions were performed by the superintendent's underage 
          children; inadequate lighting in the public areas; obstructions in 
          public areas placed there by other tenants; insecure vestibule and 
          entrance doors; building grounds and equipment alterations and 
          modifications conducted by unqualified personnel, and without 
          proper plans and permits; tenant directories that were not up-to- 
          date; improper storage of food in the basement by the superinten- 
          dent; and intercom systems equipment placed outside the entrance doors.


          The tenants' papers also reflected numerous other claims and asser- 
          tions which were insufficient to constitute specific complaints of 
          decreased services, or which pointed to items already under consid- 
          eration in separate DHCR proceedings, such as the allegation of the 
          elimination of storage space.

          The challenged order dismissed the tenants' complaints based on the 
          results of an inspection conducted on February 11, 1992 by a member 
          of the DHCR inspection staff.  The inspector reported no evidence 
          of debris on the grounds or of obstruction in public areas, ade- 
          quate janitorial services provided by an on-premises resident 
          superintendent, doors and locks operating properly, and intercoms 
          that were accessible.

          The Administrator directed the tenants to file individual apartment 
          complaints with regard to the issue of updating the tenant direc- 

          The order also advised the tenants to refer complaints regarding 
          violations of City ordinances and other laws to the appropriate 
          government agencies.  

          One of the tenants filed an appeal.  The tenant states, in essence, 
          that the various conditions cited below have not been corrected, 
          and that the owner has been cited for violations.

          A copy of the tenant's appeal was served on the registered owner, 
          the partner of the owner named by the tenants, on October 13, 1992, 
          who interposed an answer to the effect that services were main- 
          tained, that there were no violations, and that the owner was not 
          depriving the tenant of services.  In her reply, the tenant dis- 
          putes the owner's statements, and reiterates prior assertions.

          The tenant's appeal does not establish any basis to modify or 
          revoke the Administrator's order.  The Administrator determined the 
          complaints based on an inspection that indicated the owner main- 
          tained required services, and advised the tenants to refer 
          allegations of violations to the proper agencies for appropriate 
          processing.  The inspection results support the Administrator's 

          Several of the tenants' complaints, did not detail defective condi- 
          tions, but rather, routine and recurring maintenance conditions, 
          which appear to have been addressed on a prompt and continuous 
          basis, and which, therefore, did not constitute reduced services 
          warranting rent reductions.

          The Commissioner notes that the inspection report that provided the 
          basis for the Administrator's order was both conducted and prepared 


          by a DHCR inspector who is not a party to the proceedings.  In 
          determining the outcome, the report, placed in the record for the 
          Administrator's consideration was entitled to, and was afforded, 
          substantial weight.  
          The Commissioner notes that different laws and requirements are 
          involved in proceedings pertaining to violations of various laws 
          and ordinances, and these before the DHCR.  Any purported viola- 
          tions of non-DHCR matters are not within the ambit of the 
          Division's jurisdiction.  The fact that some issues overlap with 
          matters raised in DHCR proceedings is not determinative of the 
          issues before the DHCR, below or on appeal.

          The tenants were also advised below to file individual apartment 
          complaints with regard to the issue of updating building direc- 
          tories.  The instant appeal is not the proper vehicle to reassert 
          the complaint.

          The assertions below and on appeal that certain other tenants 
          allegedly were given services denied complainants, i.e.,  to main- 
          tain washing machines in their apartment or the use of a private 
          laundry facility other than the coin operated laundry room, or to 
          store food in the basement, and the assertion elaborated upon on 
          appeal that roof alarm doors were not installed until 1991, fail to 
          state complaints constituting service decreases.  The tenants did 
          not establish, nor did they assert, that these services were 
          previously provided to them.

          The tenant's claim below and on appeal that his right to storage 
          room services has been eliminated or greatly reduced is under 
          consideration in the tenant's PAR per Docket No. EG120366RT, even 
          though the Administrator's determination found that storage space 
          is provided to tenants.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, the City Rent Control Law, 
          and the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 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, 



                                                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