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

          APPEAL OF                                 DOCKET NO.: GK410094RT
          JEROME DUNLEVY                            RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                    DOCKET NOS.: EH410842S
                              Petitioner-Tenant                  EL410390S


          The above-named petitioner tenant filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on September 30, 1992 per 
          Docket No. EH410842S, concerning the housing accommodations known 
          as 200 East 66th Street, Apartment B2005, New York, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that no rent reduction was 
          warranted as services were being maintained.

          The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on December 2, 1992 per 
          Docket No. EL410390S, concerning the subject accommodations, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that conditions found in the 
          subject apartment constituted services reductions warranting a rent 

          The proceedings have been consolidated as they involve the 
          identical parties and subject apartment, as well as similar and 
          overlapping complaints, as more fully set forth below.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the records and


          has carefully considered those parts of the records relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petitions.

          The tenant commenced the proceedings by filing separate complaints 
          asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services.

          In the complaint per Docket No. Eh410842S, filed on August 30, 
          1990, the tenant alleged that the "spandrel" above a living room 
          window was rotting, that paint was flaking and discolored due to an 
          on-going problem of leakage and collapsing ceiling, extending back 
          several years, which had been raised in prior Enforcement Bureau 
          harassment proceedings and other service reduction complaints and 
          proceedings.  The tenant's submissions below included a report, 
          prepared by the architect/engineer retained by the tenant, stating, 
          in substance, that the conditions were due to structural defects.

          In the complaint per Docket No. EL410390S, filed on December 24, 
          1990, the tenant alleged extensive cracks in the living room 
          ceiling and rotting and peeling "fascia" over a living room window.

          In fact, the Enforcement Bureau harassment proceedings were closed 
          with a finding that the circumstances did not amount to harassment.  
          The closing memorandum therefrom noted, among other things, that an 
          April 27, 1990 inspection, conducted at the request of the 
          Enforcement Bureau, revealed certain thin cracks in various areas, 
          that the owner agreed to complete needed repairs, and that a report 
          prepared by the construction engineer retained by the owner to 
          ascertain the cause of the cracks, pursuant to a suggestion by the 
          Enforcement Bureau's Counsel's, indicated that the cracks were 
          cosmetic in nature.

          An inspection was conducted on September 17, 1992, in connection 
          with the complaint per Docket No. EH410842S.  The inspector 
          reported that the cracks, peeling paint and plaster and leaks and 
          stains, on ceilings and above windows had been repaired apartment- 
          wide and that there was no evidence of moisture.

          On September 20, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued an order per 
          Docket No. EH410842S, that denied the tenant's request for a rent 
          reduction, based on a finding that services were maintained.

          Thereafter an inspection was conducted on November 9, 1992 in 
          connection with the tenant's complaint per Docket No. EL410390S.  
          The inspector reported evidence of cracks in the living room 
          ceiling, and around a window frame, and rotting and rust over 
          window "fascia" in the living room and dining area windows.

          On December 2, 1992, the Rent Administrator issued an order per 
          Docket No. EL410390S directing the owner to correct the conditions 


          confirmed by the November 2, 1992 inspection, and further, ordered 
          a reduction of the stabilization rent.

          In his petition for administrative review of the order per Docket 
          No. EH410842S, the tenant argues, in substance, that the 
          Administrator's failure to effect permanent structural repairs.  
          The tenant contends that such a finding was necessary to induce the 
          owner to make such permanent repairs to preclude repetitions of 

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

          The tenant's petition does not establish any basis to modify or 
          revoke the Administrator's order per Docket No. EH410842S, which 
          determined that the owner was maintaining required services, based 
          on the physical inspection conducted on September 17, 1992.

          The record reflects that the owner repaired the defective paint and 
          plaster defects and that such defects were not apparent 
          approximately two years after the tenant's complaint.

          As to the tenant's request that the Administrator compel the owner 
          to make specific structural changes and repairs, the Commissioner 
          notes that the DHCR does not involve itself in the management of 
          regulated buildings and that management decisions, including 
          appropriate repairs of defective conditions, are properly left to 
          the owner's discretion.

          If, as here, the tenant claims that the repairs were not adequate 
          and the owner claims that they were, DHCR will decide, based on the 
          record, including among, other things, the report of the impartial 
          DHCR inspection, whether services are adequate at the time of 
          inspection, subject to the parties substantive and due process 
          rights under the Rent Stabilization Law & Code.

          Albeit defective conditions were found at the inspection conducted 
          on November 12, 1992, in the proceedings per Docket No. EL410390S, 
          this was subsequent to the Administrator's September 30, 1992 order 
          per Docket No. EH410842S.  The Administrator's order denying a rent 
          reduction was correct based on the record presented in Docket No. 

          In its petition for administrative review of the Administrator's 
          order per Docket No. EL410390S, the owner claims, in substance, 
          that it was denied due process because it never received a copy of 
          the complaint.


          An examination of the case docket and DHCR registration records 
          confirms that the mailing address entered on the notice to the 
          owner of the tenant's complaint, as well as on the order, was not 
          the owner's then and current registered address, but rather the 
          owner's address prior to the April 1990 registration.  Moreover, 
          notices to the owner in the proceedings per Docket No. EH410842S 
          were addressed properly to the owner's correct registered address.

          Based on the fact that the owner was not properly served the 
          complaint or the Administrator's order, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the rent reduction order per Docket No. EL410390S 
          should be rescinded.

          The Commissioner is of the further opinion that the matter should 
          be remanded to the Rent Administrator for further consideration.  
          The parties shall be afforded the opportunity to submit additional 
          evidence and to comment on the entire record.

          The Commissioner is rejects the owner's further argument that a 
          substantive dismissal of the tenant's complaint is also warranted, 
          as two-and-a-half (2) months earlier, in the proceedings per 
          Docket No. EH410842S, the inspector did not find defective 
          conditions.  The fact that no defective conditions were found 
          previously did not preclude their occurrence thereafter.  The 
          owner's bare suggestion that no inspection was conducted in 
          connection with the proceedings per Docket No. EL410390S is 
          rejected as being without merit, and belied by the record.

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

          ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be denied and that the Rent 
          Administrator's order per Docket No. EH410842S, be affirmed.  It is 

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition be granted, in part, to the 
          extent of rescinding the Rent Administrator's order per Docket No. 
          EL410390S and the proceedings remanded to the Administrator for 
          further consideration, in accordance with the 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