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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: GJ430074RO 
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: GA430025B       
                    Susan Weinstein,


          IN PART               

               On October 9, 1992, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          September 23, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 560 West 163 Street, Various 
          apartments, New York, N.Y. wherein the Administrator directed 
          restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the 
          maximum and stabilized legal rents, as appropriate.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the 
          record and has carefully considered that portion of the record 
          relevant to the issue raised by the administrative appeal.

               This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint on 
          January 14, 1992 alleging a decrease in services.  An inspection 
          conducted by a Division employee on February 24, 1992 confirmed the 
          existence of the complained of conditions.  

               In the PAR the owner contends, among other things, that the 
          order should be reversed because it is contrary to the prior DHCR 
          orders (Docket Nos. BI430023OR, CD430095OR) which restored rents 
          for the identical services four years ago, therefore, the owner 
          contends that the complaint simply revives matters which have 
          already been addressed in prior orders; that there is a $3.00 rent 
          reduction currently in effect for janitorial services which is 
          duplicated by a $5.00 reduction in the current order; that some of 
          the signatures on the complaint are not legal tenants and that the 
          rent reduction should not apply to them; that the order is in error 
          in that there is only one rent stabilized tenant, the remainder are 


          rent controlled.  The owner also states, incorrectly, that 
          correspondence dated October 24, 1991 from a Division employee 
          stated that this case is closed.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 
          granted in part. 

               The Division's records reveal that there was another complaint 
          which was decided on November 25, 1986 and a rent reduction order 
          was issued at that time.  Thereafter, upon application by the owner 
          the rent was restored with the exception of a $3.00 still in effect 
          for janitorial services.

               The owner is correct that the order hereunder review which 
          granted a $5.00 rent decrease for janitorial services duplicates 
          this reduction.  This portion of the order is therefore revoked.  
          The owner, however, is incorrect that the remainder of the order 
          deals with conditions that have already been restored and for this 
          reason the order should be revoked.

               The restorations which were effective at various times in 1988 
          resulted from inspections conducted by Division employees at that 
          time after the November 25, 1986 order which reduced the rent.

               The order herein appealed resulted from a complaint or 
          complaints filed on January 14, 1992.  One of the items in that 
          complaint - front entrance door - has been the subject of a 
          previous rent reduction as well as a subsequent rent restoration.  
          The appearance of this item in the tenant's complaint, however, 
          represents a new matter which was confirmed by a new inspection on 
          February 24, 1992.

               The fact that this as well as other services were found to 
          have been restored after a prior rent reduction order does not 
          establish that the rent reduction ordered herein is not warranted.  
          These are services that must be provided on an ongoing basis and 
          may deteriorate at anytime which, if confirmed by an agency 
          inspection, would warrant a rent reduction, despite an earlier 
          determination that the service was being provided.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner, judging by her answer 
          to the tenant's complaint, thought she was being served with a 
          duplicate of a prior complaint.  A review of the complaints filed 
          under each docket shows them to be distinct and the owner's error 
          here is simply that and not a failure on the part of the Division 
          to properly serve the complaint.

               The other findings in the Administrator's order are separate 
          and distinct from those found in the prior order issued on November 
          25, 1986.  They relate to matters raised for the first time in the 
          complaint herein and do not duplicate the findings in the previous 


               The Commissioner notes that the rent roll attached to the 
          Administrator's order contains the information that approximately 
          half of the building's tenants are rent stabilized.  The Division's 
          records are in agreement with the information supplied by the owner 
          in a Maximum Base Rent Application, and it appears that the owner 
          is correct in her assertion that all of the tenants affected by 
          this order are rent controlled tenants and not rent stabilized.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, the City Rent Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted 
          in part and the Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby 
          is modified in accordance with this order and opinion to order a 
          rent reduction of $41.00 (rather than $46.00) per month for all 
          tenants affected by the order.  Rent arrears due as a result of 
          this order may be paid in installments of $5.00 per month.


                                                  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