Tenant Association of 188 E 93Rd Street

USPS - Track & Confirm http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSInternetWeb/InterLabelInquiry.do

Home | Help | Sign In

Track & Confirm FAQs

Label/Receipt Number: 7006 0100 0005 9271 3199 Status: Delivered Enter Label/Receipt Number. Your item was delivered at 12:14 PM on January 31, 2007 in NEW YORK, NY 10022.

Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email.

1 of 1 1/31/2007 5:23 PM

Cassie Carter 188 E 93rd Street #1N New York, NY 10128 10 March 2007 DHCR, Gertz Plaza 92-31 Union Hall Street, 4th Floor Jamaica, NY 11433

Rent Administrator:

The attached Application for a “Rent Reduction Based upon Decreased Building-Wide Services” concerns the owner’s elimination of the entire courtyard and garden at 188 E 93rd Street as of June 2005 The landlord was formally notified of this reduction of services on 1/29/07, via a letter signed by all tenants party to this complaint (copy enclosed). In my comments below and supporting exhibits, I will elaborate upon the complaint.

In 2004, tenants of 188 E 93rd Street filed a complaint of decreased Building-Wide services, docket #SB410012-B, concerning, among other things, the landlord’s use of the building’s courtyard as a garbage dump and failure to maintain the courtyard garden. DHCR denied the complaint, stating, regarding the courtyard, “The modification or failure to maintain a particular aspect of landscaping where the grounds are generally maintained are de minimus.” Exhibit A shows the condition of the courtyard and garden at the time we filed that complaint.

Since DHCR’s decision on docket #SB410012-B, the landlord has removed the courtyard and garden entirely, as confirmed by DHCR’s inspection on 1/9/07 (Exhibit B). Elimination of the courtyard represents loss of a unique building feature cherished by all tenants, but that is not all. The landlord’s construction project that replaced the courtyard with a one-story “horizontal enlargement” also eliminated required secondary egress, light and ventilation in the common hallways, and storage space for garbage. For these reasons, we ask DHCR to recognize the elimination of the courtyard and garden as a serious reduction of services.

Exhibit C shows what the courtyard and garden looked like before the current landlord took possession of the building in 2003. 188 E 93rd Street had a beautiful courtyard and garden with flowering rhododendrons, maple trees, hosta, and ivy. All three building lobbies opened onto the courtyard. Tenants congregated there often, and passers-by would stop on the street to admire the garden through the lobby doors. Tenants planted flowers in the garden. The courtyard and garden were primary reasons why many tenants chose to live in this building.

Exhibit D shows architectural drawings for the “horizontal enlargement” project that eliminated the courtyard. The landlord filed self-certified plans for Job #104070586 with the NYC Department of Carter – Page 2

Buildings in March 2005. The plans indicate that the entire ground floor, including the courtyard, was to be converted to commercial space, with a one-story building addition in the courtyard space. The plans also show the landlord’s intention to open the party wall between 1656 and 1658 Third Avenue (A-D and M-P apartments, respectively) to re-route the residential hallway, construct a garbage room opening into the main lobby, and convert part of the cellar of 1658 Third Avenue into a laundry room.

In May 2005, the landlord began executing these plans. A doorway was cut in the party wall, thereby eliminating secondary egress for all apartments in the C, D, M, and N lines, which had ladder-less party wall balconies instead of fire escapes. The garden enclosure was demolished and excavated, as shown in Exhibit E. The courtyard was closed off and tenants were required to enter the buildings through a plywood shed-tunnel. Throughout the construction project, tenants in rear-facing apartments had much-diminished views out their windows, which overlooked blue tarps from May 2005 through February 2006 (photos available). As Exhibit F shows, as of February 2006, where previously these windows overlooked a lovely garden, now they face a barren roof. Furthermore, tenants no longer have access to the courtyard and garden we had previously enjoyed as a community space.

Exhibit G is a 1939 New York Times article reporting on renovations of tenement buildings on the southeast corner of E 93rd Street and Third Avenue, directly opposite 188 E 93rd Street. According to this article, the Third Avenue entrances were eliminated to increase commercial space, and a single new entrance was created on E 93rd Street, with “an attractive stone and iron gateway to a newly created private garden erected.” These improvements increased the rent income of the building: "Although the work has just been completed, the suites and stores are fully rented at a substantial increase in revenue." Nearly identical renovations were done at 188 E 93rd Street sometime later. In 1939, the residential entrances were still on Third Avenue. Since at least the 1960s, which is the earliest residents can remember, the residential entrance has been on E 93rd Street, opening into a private garden. If the addition of a garden increased revenue in the tenement building across the street, then adding a garden at 188 E 93rd Street did as well. The Regulated Rents in this building are based upon initial rents in a building with a garden. Elimination of the courtyard and garden, therefore, merits rent reduction in proportion to the value of the garden at least.

Access (or lack of access) to shared outdoor space also impacts the amount of rent the landlord is able to collect. The landlord installed doors giving some apartments access to shared “terrace” space on the existing lobby and new “horizontal enlargement” roofs, charging a premium for it. The photo in Exhibit H shows that apartments #1C and #1D are next door to each other, both overlooking the new horizontal enlargement’s roof. Apartment #1C has a door opening onto the horizontal enlargement’s Carter – Page 3 roof, whereas #1D does not. In September 2006, Sky Management listed #1C at a vacancy rent of $1,728 (Exhibit I). Currently #1D is available for rent at $1523 (Exhibit J). Although the landlord renovated the interior of #1D more extensively than #1C, the landlord charges $205/mo more rent for apartment #1C. Clearly access to shared outdoor space has a quantifiable value in rent. Elimination of the courtyard and garden, therefore, merits rent reduction in proportion to the value of access to shared outdoor space.

Loss of access to shared outdoor space and the aesthetic value of the courtyard and garden are significant, but these factors represent only part of the negative impact elimination of the courtyard has upon tenants. Tenement buildings have courtyards for practical reasons. In the 19th century, tenement owners were building to 100% lot coverage in order to maximize rental income. This resulted in dark hallways with no ventilation and inadequate provisions for sanitation. Cholera epidemics prompted reforms of tenement buildings, including preservation of yard space and strict requirements for light and ventilation. In 1866 one of the first cholera fatalities in New York occurred in a tenement building located at E 93rd Street and Third Avenue.

As Exhibit K and Exhibit L illustrate, elimination of our courtyard has resulted in a severe reduction of light and ventilation of the residential lobbies and hallways. In addition, we were left without secondary egress because the landlord’s “horizontal enlargement” plan failed to take into account the building’s party wall fire escape balconies. For nine months tenants lived in terror. City inspectors, unfamiliar with regulations governing Old Law tenements, repeatedly failed to recognize or act upon the hazard, until tenants finally brought it to the attention of New York state senators Tom Duane and Liz Krueger at an organizing event for the Shalom Tenants Alliance in February 2006. At that point, officials from the Department of Buildings and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development conducted a joint inspection, finding the hazard to be severe enough to warrant 24-hour fire watch guards until the landlord built a fire escape. Exhibit M shows the fire escape under construction in March 2006. Almost two years since secondary egress was eliminated, the fire escape has yet to be inspected or approved by any regulatory agency.

Elimination of the courtyard also left nowhere to dispose of or properly store garbage between collections. As indicated by our previous complaint in docket #SB410012-B, garbage accumulation and inadequate management of garbage have been problems since the current owner took possession of the building in 2003. The number of people living in the building has roughly doubled, and the amount of trash has increased exponentially. This problem has not abated, but now there is no place to properly store the tremendous amount of trash. Carter – Page 4

As Exhibit N shows, initially, the landlord moved the garbage disposal area to the closed-off lobby of the A-D building, an area intended to become part of the ground floor commercial space. The landlord also used vacant apartment A to store garbage between collection days. Following the joint inspection by HPD and DOB in February 2006, the landlord was required to restore the separate entrance to the A-D building, which meant the garbage had to go elsewhere. The landlord moved the garbage to the building entrance, as shown in Exhibit O, which caused a rat infestation originating in our building’s cellar to spread through the entire block. After receiving multiple violations from the Department of Sanitation, the landlord moved the garbage to the cellar of the M-P building, shown in Exhibit P, where it remains.

As previously mentioned, the landlord’s “horizontal enlargement” plan shown in Exhibit D originally included a “rubbish room” opening into the building’s main lobby. In June 2005, the Department of Buildings audited the landlord’s “horizontal enlargement” plan, resulting in a list of 26 objections (see Exhibit Q). Among other problems identified in the audit, the “rubbish room” was found to be illegal because only exit doors may open into an exit hallway. For the same reasons, the proposed laundry room in the cellar was disallowed. The cellar door is located beneath the residential stairs and opens into the hallway.

It is not legal to put a garbage room in the cellar for the same reasons it is not legal to have a laundry room there. Exhibit R shows the original proposed change in use from “storage” to “storage and laundry room” in Schedule A originally filed with the Department of Buildings. DOB disallowed this use. Exhibit S is the revised Schedule A, filed after the DOB audit, showing a new proposed change in use from “storage” to “storage and garbage room.” The revised plans were self-certified, so it is unlikely a plan examiner ever reviewed them. Tenants should not be forced to enter a space the landlord is using illegally.

The cellar is not fit for use by tenants. In a letter to DHCR regarding docket #TE-4100090B in 2005 (see Exhibit T), the landlord’s attorney, James Marino, stated that the cellar was never intended to be used by tenants: “Only building personnel had access to the area, and the owner is unaware of any use by any tenant on even a modicum of a basis.” The change in use has not been approved by any regulatory agency.

Moving the garbage disposal area to the cellar is a change in service. When the landlord changes a service, the modified service must be equivalent to what was provided previously. The cellar garbage room is not equivalent to the garbage bin in the courtyard. Carter – Page 5

Tenants should not be forced to use hazardous stairs to dispose of their garbage. Exhibit U shows the cellar stairs as viewed from the ground floor looking into the cellar. The cellar stair enclosure is 26” wide at its narrowest point. Tenants must walk sideways down the stairs when carrying garbage to the cellar for disposal. The stairs are steep, and the handrail is not continuous. At the center of the stairs, the top half of the handrail is shoulder-high and the lower half is knee-high. The door to the cellar is hung at the edge of the top stair and is self-closing, posing a risk that the door will swing shut and knock tenants down the stairs.

We understand that our building predates many of the laws enacted to protect tenants from substandard conditions prevalent in Old Law tenement buildings such as ours. However, previous owners of the building took measures, such as keeping the cellar doors locked, to protect tenants from these conditions. For the current owner to eliminate these protections is a reduction of services. Additionally, it is a reduction of services to create hazardous Old Law tenement conditions where they did not previously exist. Elimination of the courtyard has resulted in dark hallways, lack of ventilation, and lack of proper sanitation -- typical conditions in tenement buildings before laws were enacted to prevent and correct such conditions more than a century ago.

Elimination of the courtyard and garden at 188 E 93rd Street is a reduction of services that merits substantial rent abatement.

Sincerely,

Cassie Carter

Cc: Randy Lockard Pauline Winans Ludovica Villar-hauser Gregory Murphy Vincent Appon Monique Rivera Jennifer Misner Terry Doktor Louise Doktor Gilda Giordano Shalom Tenants Alliance Jon Wallach, DHCR

Attachments 188 E 93rd Street - Index of Exhibits

Exhibit A Condition of courtyard and garden when tenants filed docket #SB410012-B

Exhibit B Report of a DHCR inspection conducted January 8, 2007

Exhibit C 188 E 93rd Street courtyard and garden prior to current ownership

Exhibit D Architectural plans for “horizontal enlargement” construction project

Exhibit E Construction workers excavating the courtyard garden, May 2005

Exhibit F Courtyard garden before, and roof of one-story addition after “horizontal enlargement” project

Exhibit G 1939 New York Times article lauding renovation of tenement buildings at 93rd Street and Third Avenue

Exhibit H Apartments #1C and #1D overlooking “horizontal enlargement” roof

Exhibit I Sky Management rental listing for Apartment #$1C, September 2006

Exhibit J Sky Management rental listing for Apartment #1D, March 2007

Exhibit K Main lobby entrance to courtyard before, and enclosed “tunnel hallway” after “horizontal enlargement” project

Exhibit L Courtyard lobby entrances looking towards main lobby entrance before, and enclosed “tunnel hallway” after “horizontal enlargement” project

Exhibit M Elimination of required secondary egress resulting from “horizontal enlargement” project

Exhibit N Garbage stored in lobby of A-D building and vacant apartment #A as a result of elimination of courtyard

Exhibit O Garbage stored at building entrance when city agencies determine use of lobby for garbage storage is illegal

Exhibit P Garbage stored in cellar following multiple Sanitation Department violations

Exhibit Q Letter of Intent to Revoke Approval(s) and Permits with objections from Department of Buildings, June 2005

Exhibit R Schedule A showing proposed occupancy/use of cellar for laundry room

Exhibit S Revised Schedule A showing proposed occupancy/use of cellar for garbage room

Exhibit T Letter from James Marino to DHCR regarding docket #TE-4100090B, June 2005

Exhibit U Steep, narrow cellar stairs tenants must use to dispose of trash Exhibit In 2004, tenants filed DHCR docket #SB410012-B to complain about maintenance problems. Of particular concern was the landlord’s use of our courtyard as a garbage dump and failure to maintain the garden.

DHCR denied our complaint, stating, concerning the courtyard and garden:

“The modification or failure to maintain a particular aspect of landscaping where the grounds are generally maintained are [sic] de minimus.” [Emphasis added]

Exhibit

Before MED LLC took over the building, 188 E 93rd Street had a beautiful courtyard and garden with flowering rhododendrons, maple trees, hosta, and ivy. All three building lobbies opened onto the courtyard, and tenants with rear windows enjoyed a lovely view. Passers-by would stop on the street to admire our garden through the lobby doors. The courtyard and garden were unique building features. Exhibit In March 2005, the landlord filed Job #104070586 with the Department of Buildings for “horizontal expansion” of the building and conversion of the ground-floor to commercial space. The demolition plan specified elimination of the entire courtyard and garden. Exhibit May 20, 2005 The landlord’s workers cut a new doorway into the party wall between 1656 and 1658 Third Avenue to combine the two lobbies into one (thereby rendering our party wall balconies useless as a fire escape system).

May 23, 2005 Workers removed the brickwork containing the garden and excavated the soil.

May 27, 2005 An elaborate system of plywood mazes was set up to route tenants from the main lobby into the lobby of 1658 Third Avenue. Work- ers then demolished the remainder of the garden. Exhibit Before After

The courtyard and garden no longer exist. The landlord demolished the garden and constructed a one- story “horizontal expansion,” converting the entire ground floor to commercial rental space. Exhibit Apartments #1C and #1D are next-door to each other overlooking the roof of the new “horizontal enlargement.” Apartment #1C has a door opening onto this roof, but #1D does not. The landlord charges in excess of $200 more rent for #1C than for #1D.

Apartment Apartment #1D #1C Sky Management - Your New York City No Fee Apartment Rental Agents 09/25/2006 10:06 PM

location # bedrooms

188 East 93 Street (between Lexington Ave &. 3rd Ave.) Apt.# 1C Renovated studio, granite bathroom, high ceilings, hardwood floors, close to subways, buses, and Central Park, great Upper East side location!!! $1,728 Baths: 1 Access: Sky has Keys & Open House: Monday 6:30-7:30pm (9/25) Available: Now Floor: 1 Pets: NO PETS ALLOWED

Apartment Amenities: Granite Bathroom Great Sunlight Hardwood Floors High Ceilings Kitchen

Building Amenities: Great Location Heat and Hot Water Included High Ceilings Near All Near Buses Near Subway Pre-War Building Walk Up Building

[email protected] · 226 East 54 Street, Suite 402, NYC 10022 · Tel: (212)759-1300 x22 · Fax: (212)759-5229

http://www.skymanagement.com/detail.asp?id=670 Page 1 of 1 Sky Management - Your New York City No Fee Apartment Rental Agents 03/04/2007 01:08 AM

location # bedrooms

3 apartments were found matching 188 East 93 Street go to page: 1

188 East 93 Street 188 East 93 Street (between Lexington Ave (between Lexington Ave &. 3rd Ave.) &. 3rd Ave.) Apt.# 4B Apt.# 1D Newly renovated studio, Renovated studio, granite granite kitchen, granite bathroom, high ceilings, bathroom, hardwood floors storage loft, western high ceilings, steps from exposure, hardwood floors, subway, close to Central close to subways, buses, and Park, on-site superintendent. Central Park, great Upper $1,581 East side location!!! Baths: 1 $1,523 Access: Open House: Baths: 1 (tenant shows) Friday 12- Access: 6pm (3/2). No appointment Sky has keys neccessary, just go to the Jan (Super) shows Tues & building and ring the bell Thursday 1-3pm. Just go to during the designated Open the building and ring both House times. ***THE SUPER apt bells for viewings. DOES NOT SHOW THIS UNIT - NO EXCEPTIONS! View Listing

View Listing

188 East 93 Street (between Lexington Ave &. 3rd Ave.) Apt.# 4P Renovated studio, granite kitchen, granite bathroom, hardwood floors high ceilings, steps from subway, close to Central Park, on-site superintendent!!! $1,495 Baths: 1 Access: Sky has keys - borrow the keys directly from http://www.skymanagement.com/results.asp?bid=376 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit Before After

The new windowless hallway is difficult to navigate when the lights go out, which happens frequently. Exhibit Before After Exhibit

Elimination of the courtyard left tenants without secondary egress.

Following a joint inspection by HPD and DOB in February 2006, fire watch guards were installed in the building lobbies until the landlord provided a fire escape.

The landlord built a fire escape without filing plans with DOB. This fire escape had to be dismantled and rebuilt. When DOB inspectors viewed the results, violations were issued for questionable construction.

The fire escape has not yet been inspected or approved by DOB or HPD. Exhibit

With the courtyard no longer available for use as a garbage dump, the landlord transformed the lobby of 1656 Third Avenue (apartments A-D) into a “refuse room” and also made use of vacant Apartment A for garbage storage between pickups. New York City agencies found this to be illegal. Exhibit

The landlord had to find another place to put the garbage. The landlord moved it to the sidewalk at the building entrance on East 93rd Street.

An earlier plumbing problem had flooded the cellar of 1660 with sewage, which attracted rats. Storing garbage on the sidewalk exacerbated this situation, spreading the rat infestation down the block. The garbage also attracted numerous homeless people who rummaged through the garbage and strewed it all over the sidewalk. Exhibit After being served multiple violations by the Department of Sanitation, in August 2006, the landlord moved the garbage into the cellar of 1658 Third Avenue (apartments M-P).

This resolved the rat infestation on East 93rd Street, as the rats now concentrated in the cellar.

Previously, in June 2005, the Department of Buildings had objected to the landlord’s plan to use this cellar as a laundry room based upon section 6.4.1.8.2 of the 1938 Building Code.

It is illegal to have openings other than exit doorways in a required stair enclosure.

Schedule A Occupancy / Use Data Page 1 of 2

NYC Department of Buildings Schedule 'A' Occupancy / Use Data Premises: 188 EAST 93 STREET MANHATTAN BIN: 1078546 Block: 1 Job No: 104070586 Doc. #: 01 Job Type: A1 ALTERA EXISTING / FLOORS NO. LIVE HABIT OCC UNITS PROPOSED FRM - TO PERS LOAD ROOMS GRP EXISTING CEL - OG RES Storage

PROPOSED CEL - OG RES Storage, Laundry Room, Boiler Room,

EXISTING 001 - 50 100 4 RES 3 5 Stores, 3 APT's, 1 Eating and Drinking Establishment

PROPOSED 001 - 309 100 RES 1 Store, 2 Eating and Drinking Establishments, Residential Lobby

EXISTING 002 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

PROPOSED 002 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

EXISTING 003 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

PROPOSED 003 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

EXISTING 004 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

PROPOSED 004 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

EXISTING 005 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

PROPOSED 005 - 40 13 RES 12 12 Apartments

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsScheduleAServlet?requestid=6&allisn=000110269... 4/15/2005 Schedule A Occupancy / Use Data 11/02/2005 11:47 AM

NYC Department of Buildings Schedule 'A' Occupancy / Use Data Premises: 188 EAST 93 STREET MANHATTAN BIN: 1078546 Block: 1521 Lot: 40 Job No: 104070586 Doc. #: 02 Job Type: A1 - ALTERATION TYPE 1 EXISTING / FLOORS NO. LIVE HABIT OCC UNITS ZONE PROPOSED FRM - TO PERS LOAD ROOMS GRP USE EXISTING CEL - OG RES 2 Storage

PROPOSED CEL - OG RES 2 STORAGE,BOILER ROOM, GARBAGE ROOM

EXISTING 001 - 50 100 4 RES 3 2, 6 5 Stores, 3 APT's, 1 Eating and Drinking Establishment

PROPOSED 001 - 11 100 0 COM 0 6 1 STORE

EXISTING 001 -

PROPOSED 001 - 126 100 COM 6 1 EATING & DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT

EXISTING 001 -

PROPOSED 001 - 124 100 COM 6 1 EATING & DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT

EXISTING 001 -

PROPOSED 001 - 100 RES 2 RESIDENTIAL LOBBY

EXISTING 002 - 40 13 RES 12 2 12 Apartments

PROPOSED 002 - 40 13 RES 12 2 12 Apartments

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsScheduleAServlet?requestid…ssdocnumber=02&allbin=1078546&s=2A3A6D818BE8E20719A2E1A81CB65E24 Page 1 of 2

Exhibit

Before the courtyard was eliminated, tenants disposed of trash in a trash bin in the courtyard.

Since August 2006, tenants have been required to carry their trash down a steep, narrow stair into the cellar.

The cellar stair enclosure is 26” wide at its narrowest point. It is necessary for tenants to walk sideways down the stairs when carrying garbage to the cellar for disposal.

The door to the cellar is hung at the edge of the top stair and is self-closing, posing a risk that the door will swing shut and knock tenants down the stairs.