AL 210350-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.            
                                                  AL 210350-RO
                 MARVIN H. GREENE,                
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.  
                                  PETITIONER      KC 002967-S 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   
                                          

          On December 29, 1986, the above-named owner filed a petition  for
          administrative review of an order issued on December 10, 1986  by
          a District Rent Administrator concerning the  housing  accommoda-
          tion known as 8758 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment 
          B-9.

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application  by
          the tenant on June 11, 1985 for a reduction in rent based on  the
          landlord's failure to maintain services in the subject apartment. 
          The tenant included copies of letters  dated  November  1,  1984,
          December 1, 1984, February 1, 1985 and May 1, 1985 notifying  the
          landlord that painting of the entire apartment was due  and  that
          repairs were needed.

          In his answer, the landlord did not deny the need for repairs and 
          painting or the allegations of prior notice to him by the tenant, 
          but said that a date would be scheduled for  the  work  when  the
          tenant notifies him.

          On November 19, 1985  the  tenant  responded  to  the  landlord's
          answer asserting, in pertinent part, that the work had still  not
          been done.  The tenant also asserted  that  during  the  week  of
          October 28, 1985 he had called the office of the landlord to make 
          an appointment for the work in his apartment and that although  a
          message was left with the  receptionist,  the  landlord  did  not
          return the call to schedule the work.



          On May 11, 1986 the tenant, pursuant to a Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) request  for  updated  information,  as-
          serted in pertinent part that the work had still not been done.

          An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on June  17,
          1986 by a DHCR inspector, who confirmed that the kitchen,  living
          room and bedroom had peeling paint and  plaster  and  noted  that
          although the bathroom had been repaired,  the  repairs  had  been







          AL 210350-RO
          done in an unworkmanlike manner.

          On December 10, 1986 the District Rent Administrator  issued  the
          order here under review, reducing the rent to reflect the failure 
          to make repairs or to complete them in a workmanlike manner.

          In his petition for administrative review,  the  landlord  states
          that the tenant denied access until January 1987.

          In his answer, the tenant denies the landlord's allegation of  no
          access.

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

          The landlord asserts for the first time on appeal that the tenant 
          has refused to permit access.  The Commissioner notes  that  this
          issue may not be considered for the first time on  administrative
          review.  Moreover, even if the issue  were  properly  before  the
          Commissioner, it would fail on its merits.  The tenant  has  sub-
          mitted voluminous evidence of repeated requests for the work  and
          for appointments, to no avail.  Additionally, the landlord failed 
          to deny the tenant's allegations of attempts to have the landlord 
          do the work when this proceeding was  before  the  District  Rent
          Administrator.  Finally, the landlord's assertion  of  no  access
          is belied by the report of inspection, which showed some  repairs
          were indeed done, but in an unworkmanlike manner.  

          Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the District 
          Rent Administrator's order should be affirmed.


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










           

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


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                Deputy Commissioner







          AL 210350-RO


                                          
    

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