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.: BA 420155-RT
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: ZAC 410807-S
      EDWARD MALONEY-TENANT
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


       ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING IN PART PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On January 14, 1987, the  above-named  petitioner  filed  a  Petition  for
     Administrative Review against an order issued on December 11, 19 86 by the 
     Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York  concerning
     the housing accommodation known as apartment 4H, 215 East 80th Street, New 
     York, New York wherein the Administrator directed the owner to  restore  a
     decreased service  to  the  required  lease  but  did  not  order  a  rent
     reduction.

     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 in the administrative appeal.

     The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a  complaint  alleging  two
     service deficiencies, failure to paint and failure to wax and buff floors.

     The tenant also requested reimbursement for painting expenses incurred  by
     the tenant in 1983.  The tenant applied for a rent reduction if  no  other
     remedy was available.  

     A copy of the complaint was served on the owner on April 16, 1986.

     In response, the owner stated that it had no obligation to  wax  and  buff
     the floors and submitted a copy of the tenant's lease to substantiate  the
     assertion.  The  owner  stated  also  that  it  would  paint  the  subject
     apartment when the tenant arranged to have it done.

     In reply, the tenant stated that buffing was an owner-provided service  in
     the prime lease of 1977-1980  (when  the  tenant  was  a  sub-tenant)  and
     submitted a portion of that lease.

     A physical inspection of the subject apartment was conducted  by  a  staff
     member of the DHCR who reported that the entire apartment was in  need  of
     scraping and painting.








          DOCKET NUMBER: BA 420155-RT
     In the order issued on December 11, 1986 the Administrator determined that 
     there had been a diminution of services and directed the owner to  restore
     the service.  Since the law does not authorize a  rent  reduction  upon  a
     finding of decreased services in a residential hotel,  no  rent  reduction
     was ordered.

     In the petition, the tenant  seeks  modification  of  the  Administrator's
     order and contends that the Administrator erred  in  calling  the  subject
     premises a residential hotel.  Furthermore  the  tenant  states  that  the
     administrator ignored the substance  of  the  complaint  i.e.  the  refund
     requested for the 1983 painting and floor buffing,  a  service  which  was
     required by the tenant's first lease.  The tenant stated  that  a  similar
     situation with respect to painting had arisen in  1979  and  the  CAB  had
     ordered the owner to reimburse the tenant.

     In reply the owner asserts there is no clause in the tenant's prior  lease
     requiring the owner to buff the floor.  With regard to painting the  owner
     reiterates its previous answer.

     The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be granted in 
     part.

     Code Section 2520.6r(r) provides  in  pertinent  part  that  each  housing
     accommodation  must  be  painted  at  lease  once  every  three  years  in
     compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code.  Pursuant  to  Code  Section
     2523.4, a tenant may apply for a reduction of the legal regulated rent  to
     the level in effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment and the 
     DHCR shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it  is  found  that
     the owner has failed to maintain required services.

     The record in the instant case clearly shows that  the  subject  apartment
     required painting.  The Commissioner finds  no  evidence  to  sustain  the
     finding that the subject premises is a residential hotel.   The  apartment
     is registered as a stabilized apartment.  The leases submitted in evidence 
     appear to be standard apartment leases moreover, neither  of  the  parties
     made such an assertion.  Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that  the
     Administrator's order should be modified to reflect the correct status  of
     the subject apartment.

     The tenant's application for a rent reduction was conditional.  The tenant 
     wanted a rent reduction only  if  no  other  remedy  was  available.   The
     tenant's actual concern was reimbursement for  painting  expenses  he  had
     incurred in 1983.  The Code does not provide  for  the  relief  requested.
     Accordingly, this order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's  right
     to pursue the refund matter in a court of  competent  jurisdiction.   Upon
     the finding that the owner had failed to maintain services,  Code  section
     2523.4 mandates a reduction in rent.  Therefore,  the  Commissioner  finds
     that the rent should be reduced to the level in effect prior to  the  most
     recent guidelines adjustment effective retroactively  May  1,  1986.   The
     arrears portion of this reduction may be credited against current rent not 
     to exceed 20% per month.  The owner may apply for a restoration of rent by 
     submitting proof that the decreased service has been restored or by filing 
     an application for a rent restoration.  If  the  facts  so  warrant,  such
     restoration will be effective on the first of the month following  service
     as the tenant of an order restoring the rent.







          DOCKET NUMBER: BA 420155-RT
     With respect to the floor buffing allegation, careful perusal of the  1977
     lease, the lease in question, reveals only  one  clause,  clause  no.  35,
     which is pertinent to the subject matter.   The  Commissioner  notes  that
     this clause does not relate to on going obligations owed by the owner  but
     concerns  only  initial  owner  responsibilities  to  ready  the   subject
     apartment for occupancy.  Accordingly, the  Commissioner  finds  that  the
     1977 lease did not require the owner  to  provide  regular  floor  buffing
     services.

     The Commissioner finds that the petition  to  modify  the  Administrator's
     order should be granted to the extent that:

          (1) the subject premises is not a residential hotel, and
          (2) a rent reduction should be ordered, and should be denied 
              respect to (1) the reimbursement request, and (2) the floor
              buffing claim.

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

     ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted  in  part,
     and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, modified in 
     accordance with this order and opinion.

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                            ELLIOT SANDER
                                          Deputy Commissioner