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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BJ430049RO      
            Albert Kalimian c/o
            Rosenberg and Estis, P.C.,           RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: AH410811S
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                         339 E.57th. St.
                                                         New York, NY        

            The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
            review of an order under docket number AL410254S issued on August 
            28, 1987 concerning the housing accommodations relating to the 
            above-described docket number.  

            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.

            The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint 
            (AH410811S) on August 24, 1986 asserting that the owner had failed 
            to maintain certain services in the subject apartment.

            In its answer, the owner asserted that the tenant refused the 
            replacement refrigerator; the tenant failed to submit the painting 
            deposit necessary for painting; that the tenant refused access; and 
            that the other services have been repaired and are maintained. The 
            Commissioner notes that the attachments to the answer do not clearly 
            substantiate these assertions.

            The Commissioner notes that on December 12, 1986, the tenant filed 
            another complaint (AL410254S) which replicated this proceeding.

            On December 1, 1986 and under the docket no. AH410811S, an 
            inspection of the subject apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff 
            member who reported that the refrigerator was inoperative at the 
            time of inspection; the freezer temperature  was 58@F; and the 
            refrigerator was 68@F.


            Under the duplicate proceeding AL410254S, a physical inspection was 
            conducted on March 19, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who reported 
            among other things that the refrigerator and freezer were defective; 
            neither the freezer nor the refrigerator element of the applicance 
            worked; the freezer temperature was 48@F; and the refrigerator 
            temperature was 58@F.

            By order AH410811S dated July 15, 1987, the Administrator directed 
            the owner to provide the tenant a good working refrigerator model 
            comparable to the original unit now with the tenant. The 
            Administrator determined that though the tenant did request a rent 
            reduction, a rent reduction is not warranted.

            However, by order AL410254S dated August 28, 1987, the Administrator 
            determined that the refrigerator and the freezer were defective, 
            directed the restoration of services, and ordered a rent reduction.

            In its petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
            in a July 28, 1987 letter, it offered the tenant a replacement 
            refrigerator because the existing refrigerator is obsolete without 
            available spare parts; however, the tenant merely wanted repairs so 
            as to avoid the corresponding rental increase for new equipment; and 
            due to the contradictory findings, the Administrator's order 
            AH410811S should be affirmed and AL410254S revoked.
            On December 14, 1987, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the 
            tenant who filed an answer stating in relevant part that she 
            "sweated over the reinstallation" of her sixth refrigeration unit in 
            three (3) years; and that her refrigerator/freezer is still 

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

            The common ground of the apparently contradictory orders is in the 
            inspection results of December 1, 1986 and March 19, 1987. The first 
            inspection revealed that the refrigerator was inoperative at the 
            time of inspection; the freezer temperature  was 58@F; and the 
            refrigerator was 68@F. The second inspection confirmed the first, 
            i.e. the refrigerator and freezer were defective; neither the 
            freezer nor the refrigerator element of the applicance worked; the 
            freezer temperature was 48@F; and the refrigerator temperature was 
            58@F. The Commissioner finds these defective conditions serious 
            decreased services, warranting a rent reduction; and that 
            accordingly, the Administrator's order AH410811S dated July 15, 1987 
            which incorrectly failed to reduce the rent should be revoked.

            Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
            authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, 
            where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required 



            services. The claim of attempts to replace the refrigerator or to 
            repair effectively is not supported by the record. There is no 
            sufficient evidence to substantiate the contention that the tenant 
            refused access. The petition does not at all establish any basis for 
            modifying or revoking the challenged order (AL410254S), which 
            determined that the owner was not maintaining required services in 
            the apartment for which a rent reduction is warranted.

            The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
            by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
            Order and Opinion.

            The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application 
            CD410085OR was denied on May 5, 1989; and that the next application 
            DG410133OR was granted on April 6, 1990.

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

            ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied;  
            that the Administrator's order (AL410254S) be, and the same hereby 
            is, affirmed; and that the order (AH410811S) be, and the same 
            hereby, is revoked. 


                                            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