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

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.: FI410380RT
          Stephen A. Glanzrock and                RENT                       
          Richard Brause, Tenants                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: EA430172OR

          On September 12, 1991 the above named petitioner-tenants filed 
          Petitions for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order of the 
          Rent Administrator issued on August 8, 1991 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as various apartments at 275, 277, and 279 
          West 22nd Street, New York, NY wherein the Rent Administrator 
          granted the owner's rent restoration application.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has 
          carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on 

          A review of the record reveals that on January 19, 1990, the owner 
          filed an application to restore rents that had been reduced in an 
          order issued on June 23, 1988 in Docket No. BK430067B.  The owner 
          stated in the application that the exterior entrance lights have 
          been replaced, that additional garbage cans have been purchased, 
          and that a new superintendent has been hired who lives in an 
          adjoining building.

          The application was served on the tenants on March 7, 1990.  Four 
          tenants, including the petitioners herein, filed answers claiming 
          that services have not been restored.

          A DHCR inspector visited 277 West 22nd Street on October 29, 1990 
          and reported that the exterior light fixture was adequate, there 
          was no evidence of garbage accumulation, the public areas were not 
          dirty and janitorial services appeared to be adequate, but there 
          were no garbage receptacles.  Another inspection of all three 
          buildings on January 7, 1991 revealed that all services listed in 
          the rent reduction order had been restored except that the public 
          areas in 275 and 279 West 22nd were dirty.


          On March 27, 1991, the owner was notified of the results of the 
          inspection and advised to provide a sworn statement by the 
          super/janitor that the areas noted in the inspector's report were 
          cleaned after the date of the notice.  In response, the owner 
          submitted an undated  (and unsworn) letter to it from the 
          superintendent stating that the hallways and stairs have been 
          cleaned to the satisfaction of the tenants.  The letter contains 
          the signatures of five tenants.

          Based on this letter and the inspections, the Rent Administrator 
          granted the owner's application and ordered restoration of the 
          rents effective May 1, 1991 for rent stabilized tenants and 
          September 1, 1991 for rent controlled tenants.

          In the petition for administrative review filed by tenant 
          Glanzrock, it is urged that the restoration order be revoked 
          because the Division's own inspector found that the public hallways 
          and stairs needed to be cleaned.  The petitioner claims that the 
          person who purported to be the managing agent for the premises is 
          not a legal agent but someone employed by the true agent to attempt 
          to obtain signatures from the tenants.  Of those who signed the 
          letter submitted by the owner, one tenant claims that she signed 
          under duress and submits a statement to that effect, one is 
          actually the owner's agent, and one told the petitioner that she 
          sweeps the halls herself.  The super works for the owner and the 
          evidence is clear, according to the petitioner, that he is not 
          doing his job, in part because he serves several other buildings in 
          the neighborhood, comprising more than 65 units. The petitioner 
          also states that the exterior light fixture is frequently burned 
          out because it is on all the time, that there was no evidence of 
          garbage accumulation on the day the inspector came because the 
          Sanitation Department had just picked up the garbage, and that the 
          public areas were clean only because the tenants clean them 
          themselves.  Included with the petition are photographs, dated by 
          means of newspapers, purporting to depict the failure to maintain 
          the public areas of the buildings.

          In the petition for administrative review filed by tenant Brause, 
          it is alleged that the owner is not entitled to any rent increases 
          because the buildings are not properly registered with DHCR, that 
          the owner's statement regarding cleaning the public areas is self- 
          serving, that the tenants themselves clean the halls and stairs and 
          attempt to prevent accumulation of garbage, that the inadequacy of 
          the janitorial services is indicated by the lack of hot water from 
          April to June 1991 as documented by the Buildings Department, and 
          that, in violation of the Housing Maintenance Code, the janitor 
          does not reside in a building that connects or adjoins the subject 

          The petitions were served on the owner on November 1, 1991.  In 
          response, the owner stated that because of foreclosure proceedings, 


          the buildings are now in the hands of a receiver.  The petitions 
          were then served on the receiver who claimed that all services are 
          being maintained, that the photos can be created by anyone with a 
          camera and do not establish the existence of abnormally dirty 
          conditions, and that the superintendent is very competent and does 
          his job well.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitions should be granted 
          in part and the proceeding remanded to the Rent Administrator.  

          An owner is entitled to restoration of rent if it is established 
          that all services for which the rent was reduced have been 

          In the instant case, the Division's inspector found that all 
          services had been restored except that buildings 275 and 279 had 
          dirty hallways and stairs.  This report established that 
          restoration of rents was not warranted.

          The owner was directed by the Rent Administrator to submit a sworn 
          statement by the superintendent or janitor that the public areas 
          were subsequently cleaned.  The statement submitted by the owner 
          was not sworn to and was repudiated by at least one of the tenants, 
          whose signatures appears on the letter.

          Moreover, the petitioners have adequately established, by means of 
          photographs and documentary evidence (i.e., records of violations) 
          that restoration of rent may not have been warranted.  A remand of 
          the proceeding to the Rent Administrator for another physical 
          inspection is deemed necessary in order to ascertain that the 
          public hallways and stairs are being maintained in a clean 
          condition. If they are not, the restoration of rent should be 
          revoked for the two petitioner-tenants.

          With regard to the allegation that the owner is not entitled to any 
          rent increases because the buildings are not registered, it is 
          noted that the restoration order restores the rents to the level in 
          effect prior to the rent reduction "plus subsequent lawful 
          increases."  If the buildings are not registered, there would be no 
          subsequent increases.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED that these petitions be and the same hereby are granted in 
          part and the proceeding be and the same hereby is remanded to the 
          Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with this 
          order and opinion.  The Rent Administrator's order remains in full 
          force and effect pending the issuance of a new order pursuant to 
          this remand.


                                             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