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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: HC430023RO

                    E.F.M. Realty Corp.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: EK430027B


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on February 5, 1993 concerning the 
          housing accommodations known as 124 Fort George Avenue, Brooklyn, 
          New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the tenants' 
          complaint of decreased building-wide services.

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

          Three rent stabilized tenants commenced this proceeding by filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          services in the subject premises.  No rent controlled tenants 
          signed the complaint.  Nor was it indicated that any of the signers 
          was designated the ten`mvq' representative.

          In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the 

          Thereafter, the DHCR conducted an inspection of the subject 
          building.  The DHCR inspector observed that the building had three 
          sections A,B, and C, that the A section entrance door lock was 
          defective and the B and C entrance doors did not have locks, that 
          the A,B, and C fourth and fifth floors' walls and ceilings were 
          stained and had peeling plaster and paint, and that the light 
          fixture above the mailboxes in the A section was not working.  
          Other alleged defective conditions were not confirmed.


          The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and 
          further, ordered a reduction of the stabilization and controlled 

          In this petition for administrative review, the owner, in 
          substance, questions whether there was an inspection, asserts that 
          it was entitled to notice of the reswl4q of the inspection, if any, 
          argues that the rent reduction was limited to the three stabilized 
          tenants who signed the complaint, and contends that inspections in 
          prior proceedings had established that all services are maintained.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be granted, in part.

          The owner's suggestion that there was no inspection by the DHCR is 
          groundless and is belied by the record; the owner could have 
          confirmed that the proceedings were processed properly merely by 
          filing a FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) Application to examine 
          the record.

          The owner continues that, if there was an inspection, the DHCR 
          should have followed the practice that gives the owner notice of 
          the inspection results if the inspection reveals that at least 50% 
          of the items in the complaint have been corrected, so as to provide 
          the owner an opportunity to complete repairs before any order is 
          issued.  In fact, an opportunity to complete repairs has not been 
          provided to owners when there were hazardous conditions among the 
          items remaining to be corrected.  Broken, missing, or inoperative 
          doors or locks at any building entrance (other than doors not 
          required to be locked) have been deemed to be hazardous conditions 
          warranting a building-wide rent reduction, notwithstanding the 50% 

          The owner further alludes to previous separate proceedings where 
          the same conditions were not confirmed or were found to have been 
          repaired.  However, the fact that defective conditions were not 
          found previously in other proceedings does not preclude their 
          occurrence or reoccurrence as furnishing a basis for a rent 
          reduction in subsequent proceedings.
          The owner is correct, however, that the rent reduction should have 
          been limited to the three rent stabilized tenants who signed the 
          complaint.  Only the rent stabilized tenants that sign the 
          complaint benefit from a rent reduction.  No rent controlled 
          tenants were entitled to a rent reduction because the complaint was 
          not signed by at least one rent controlled tenant.

          Rent arrears may be due the owner from various tenants as a result 
          of this order.  Any arrears shall be paid in equal monthly 


          installments at the amount of the monthly rent reduction, revoked 
          herein, until such arrears are eliminated.

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

          ORDERED, that the owner's petition for administrative review be and 
          the same hereby is granted, in part, in that the Rent 
          Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked as to 
          tenants who did not sign the complaint.  The Rent Administrator's 
          order is affirmed as to the three tenants (Apartments B,C and B16) 
          that signed the complaint.


                                             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