ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 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.:              
                                                 GC 430081 RO                
                                     
                                              :  
                                                 
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
                                                 DL 430069 B
             LEON SLOAN/JACOBS, ZINNS ET AL.,                                
                                                 PREMISES: 10 Gay Street,
                                                 New York, NY 

                              PETITIONERS     : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The above-named owner timely filed a petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on February 7, 1992 
          concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above- 
          described docket number wherein the Administrator ordered a rent 
          reduction based on a finding of a decrease in services.

               The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order 
          was warranted.

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

               This proceeding was commenced on December 22, 1989 by rent- 
          stabilized and rent-controlled tenants filing a complaint of a 
          decrease in building-wide services, alleging numerous defective 
          conditions in the subject building including, but not limited to, 
          a roof leak causing major water damage in the walls and peeling and 
          cracking on the ceiling of the fifth floor. 

               On January 18, 1990, the Division mailed the owner a copy of 
          the tenants' complaint.















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO

               In an answer filed on February 7, 1990, the owner stated in 
          substance that "upon examination...all services are being provided 
          and are acceptable as far as required services."

               On March 25, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject 
          building was conducted by a Division staff member who reported that 
          there is evidence of water damage and peeling paint and plaster on 
          the fifth floor walls and ceiling; and that there are missing tiles 
          on the first floor, in front of the basement door, and around the 
          radiator riser. 

               The Division mailed the owner on April 24, 1991 a letter 
          informing the owner of the above-results of the inspection and 
          allowing the owner the opportunity within twenty (20) days to 
          correct the defective conditions and to submit proof of compliance.

               On May 14, 1991, the owner filed a letter with the Division 
          requesting twenty (20) days to "make all necessary repairs."

               On June 5, 1991, the owner filed another letter with the 
          Division, asserting that "the public halls have been plastered and 
          repainted throughout"; that "the cause of the water damage has been 
          found and corrected"; and that "the missing tiles on the first 
          floor, in front of the basement door, and around the radiator riser 
          have been replaced."  The owner submitted a copy of a work invoice 
          amounting to a sum of $1,300.00, to wit, repairing flashing at 
          bulkhead to roof to stop leaking ($50.00), plastering and painting 
          all public halls including 5th floor walls and ceiling ($1,000.00), 
          and replacing missing tiles on first floor in front of the basement 
          door and the radiator riser ($250.00).    

               Thereafter, another on-site inspection of the subject building 
          was conducted on July 18, 1991 by a Division staff member who 
          reported evidence of peeling paint and plaster in the fifth floor 
          public area, on the ceiling near the fixture, on the roof bulkhead 
          wall, water stains near the fixture, and evidence of missing tiles 
          in the first floor by the side of the basement door.  

               On February 7, 1992, the Administrator issued the order 
          hereunder review, reducing the rent-stabilized rent to the level in 
          effect prior to the last rent guidelines increase, effective 
          February 1, 1990, and reducing the maximum legal rent of the rent 
          controlled tenants by $16.00 (5th floor hall needing paint and 
          plastering $6.00; water leaks at the bulkhead $5.00; floor covering 
          on the 1st floor hall $5.00) effective March 1, 1992.    





               In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the 
          Administrator failed to consider that all services were restored 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO

          after the March 25, 1991 inspection and prior to the issuance of 
          the Administrator's order; and that the issue of the "bulkhead" was 
          never raised by the tenants in the underlying complaint.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition 
          should be denied.

               The record clearly reveals that the Administrator properly
          processed and considered the owner's allegations in the proceeding 
          below.  Although the owner stated in his February 7, 1990 answer to 
          the tenants' complaint that "all services are being provided and 
          are acceptable as far as required services", a March 25, 1991 on- 
          site inspection revealed the existence of defective conditions.  On 
          April 24, 1991, the owner was informed of the results of the 
          inspection and given the opportunity to correct the defect within 
          twenty (20) days. On May 14, 1991, the owner requested another 
          twenty (20) days to "make all necessary repairs" despite his being 
          served of the tenants' complaint on January 18, 1990.  On June 5, 
          1991, the owner filed another letter with the Division, asserting 
          completion of repairs and submitting copies of a work invoice 
          indicating same.  However, a July 18,1991 on-site inspection 
          indicated to the contrary, that defective conditions as set forth 
          above continue to exist.     

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly determined that the owner had failed to maintain required 
          services based on the evidence of the record, including the results 
          of the March 25, 1991 and July 18, 1991 on-site inspections.

               The owner's contention that the issue of the "bulkhead" was 
          never raised by the tenants in the underlying complaint is without 
          merit.  The tenants' December 22, 1989 complaint mentioned a roof 
          leak causing major water damage on the walls and peeling and 
          cracking on the ceiling of the fifth floor.  The finding of the 
          July 18, 1991 inspection that there is evidence of peeling paint 
          and plaster on the roof bulkhead wall simply demonstrates that the 
          roof leak originally complained-of has deteriorated. 

               This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the 
          owner's right to file the appropriate application with the Division 
          for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of services, 
          if the facts so warrant.

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



               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.













          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GC 430081 RO

          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