ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA 630069-RO

                                                                             
                             STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ------------------------------------X 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 GA 630069-RO
                                              :
                                                 DRO ORDER NO.:           
                                                 DF 630240-B              
               FEIN REALTY MANAGEMENT        
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On January 17, 1992, the above named petitioner owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          December 13, 1991, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          309 East Mosholu Parkway, Bronx, New York.

               Subsequent thereto the petitioner filed a petition in the 
          Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 78 of the civil Practice Law and 
          Rules, requesting that the "deemed denial" of the administrative 
          appeal be denied.  An order signed by the Justice of the Court 
          remitted the proceeding to the Division for an expeditious 
          determination of the owner's administrative appeal.   

               The tenants initially complained about leaks and the need for 
          brick pointing and sealing, among other items.  An inspection by 
          agency staff on March 15, 1991 confirmed the leaks reporting that 
          the bulkhead wall was water damaged.  The owner was subsequently 
          notified of the findings and was afforded the opportunity to 
          correct the conditions.  The owner subsequently responded that the 
          contractor had corrected all leak damage to the bulkhead area.  In 
          support the owner submitted a copy of the contractor's proposal for 
          various repair work, dated April 3, 1991.  A second inspection 
          conducted on November 20, 1991 disclosed, however, that the 
          bulkhead wall was peeling paint and plaster.

               Accordingly, orders were issued on December 13, 1991 reducing 
          the rents building-wide.














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GA 630069-RO

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The petitioner's claim that the order was based on conditions 
          not complained about by the tenants is rejected.  The tenants had 
          alleged leaks.  The first inspection confirmed that water damage  
          existed in the bulkhead area, and notice of the specific findings 
          was provided to the owner.  The peeling paint and plaster found on 
          reinspection revealed that the underlying problem had not been    
          corrected or that it had reoccurred.  The conditions found in both 
          inspections were directly related to the complaint and were the 
          foreseeable consequences of water leaks when not properly 
          addressed.

               The argument that the conditions were cosmetic and did not 
          constitute required or essential services likewise is without 
          merit.  The reports reflected a deterioration of an interior wall, 
          with possible impairment to the structural integrity of the 
          building, affecting tenants throughout the building.  

               While the owner is commended for correcting other items cited 
          in the tenants' complaint, rent stabilization and rent control 
          provisions mandate rent reductions for any failure to maintain 
          required or essential services and equipment.  

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, and of the City Rent Control Law and 
          the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is

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

          ISSUED:



                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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