BC 130052 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.: BC 130052 RO
MITCHELL S. GELBERG DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: AD 110019 S
PETITIONER
----------------------------------x
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On March 9, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued February 4, 1987. The order
concerned housing accommodations known as Apt 2 located at 260-34
Langston Avenue, Glen Oaks, N.Y. wherein the Administrator
ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain required or
essential services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 4, 1986, by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services. She
alleged that in 1985 she was reimbursed by the owner $25.00 per
room for doing her own painting in 1983 but that the owner had
taken back $25.00 because one room had been repainted by the
owner after a leak developed. The tenant stated that deducting
the $25.00 is "both a decrease in service and an overcharge as
well." The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and
afforded an opportunity to respond. No response was ever
received.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
subject apartment. The inspection was held on August 27, 1986
and revealed that the apartment was in need of painting and
plastering. On February 4, 1987 the Administrator issued the
order here under review, wherein the rent was ordered reduced by
a guideline based on the inspector's report.
On appeal, the owner states that the tenant's complaint was
based on the alleged failure to reimburse for painting. The
Administrator ordered the rent reduction here under review based
on the fact that the apartment in question required painting and
plastering. The crux of the owner's argument is that the Admin-
istrator granted a remedy which is inconsistent with that
requested by the tenant in the complaint. The tenant filed a
response wherein she stated that she was unaware of the nature of
this proceeding and requesting a copy of the petition and order
here under review. The requested documents were sent to the
tenant on March 24, 1992.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
granted and the Administrator's order should be revoked.
A rent reduction is warranted, at a tenant's request, where
it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. In this case, however, the tenant did not assert that
the owner had failed to provide required painting services and,
having painted the apartment herself, she did not even request
the painting and plastering that the Administrator found was
needed. The tenant merely sought to recoup the $25.00 that the
owner had deducted from the painting reimbursement. There is no
provision in the Rent Stabilization Law and Code for ordering a
rent reduction based on these facts and the Administrator's order
must be revoked. The Division also has no authority to order the
remedy the tenant seeks and she is advised to pursue her claim in
a court of competent jurisdiction.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|