BD 420285-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.:             
                                                  BD 420285-RO
                 CHARLES SARACCO,       
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      LC 003528-S 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                       IN PART                             


          On April  15,  1987  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a
          petition for administrative review against  an  order  issued  on
          March 12, 1987 by an administrator concerning the housing  accom-
          modation known as 157 Prince Street, Apartment  3-TF,  New  York,
          New York wherein the administrator determined that the owner  was
          not maintaining certain services and ordered a rent reduction  of
          $29.00 per month.

          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 by the administrative appeal.

          The tenant commenced this proceeding on April 22, 1985 by  filing
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to mainta n  cer-
          tain services in the subject apartment.  Specifically, the tenant 
          asserted that:

               1.    The  windows  throughout  the  apartment  required
                    maintenance,
               2.   the sink was defective,  the  bathtub  was  leaking
                    and rusty and
               3.   the apartment had never been painted.  

          The tenant indicated that she took occupancy of the apartment  in
          1955 and that the apartment is subject to rent control.


          In its answer the owner asserted that all services were  properly
          maintained and that with respect to painting, the DHCR  had  pre-
          viously issued an order in which it was determined that  painting
          is not an essential service included in the  maximum  legal  rent
          and therefore is not required to be  provided  by  the  landlord.
          The owner further stated that the subject building had been 
          converted into habitable housing units  after  1947  and  should,
          therefore be exempt from the rent control regulations.  The owner 
          asserted that in 1963 the building was renovated and changed from 







          BD 420285-RO
          a rooming house to two self-contained housing units plus a studio 
          and a store.  An  altered  building  application  was  submitted,
          dated September 3, 1963, which indicates an  existing  use  of  3
          families plus a store and a proposed use of two families plus  an
          office and a store.

          On May 21, 1986 a DHCR inspection revealed:

               1.    that two living room sashes were rotted,
               2.    one living room glass pane cracked, 
               3.    one kitchen window rattled,
               4.    one bathroom window glass was loose,
               5.    the hot and cold  water  faucets  of  the  bathtub
                    leaked, and
               6.    the apartment needed painting throughout.

          The Administrator concluded that the owner  had  not  established
          that apartment was not subject to control and on March  12,  1987
          issued an order in which it was determined that the landlord  had
          failed to maintain services.  The maximum legal rent of the  sub-
          ject apartment was reduced by $29.00 per month, of  which  $20.00
          was for failure to paint.

          In this petition the owner contends that it has completed all  of
          the necessary repairs except for the subject painting and sub-
          mitted a copy of an order issued July 23, 1981, under Docket  No.
          2TP 40561 in which it is  determined  that  painting  is  not  an
          essential service included in the  maximum  legal  rent  for  the
          subject apartment.

          The tenant  responded  asserting  that  the  landlord's  petition
          should be denied because it has failed to maintain those services 
          for which the rent was reduced.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition for  admin-
          istrative review should be granted in part.




          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator's order  was  prop-
          erly based on the entire record, including  the  results  of  the
          on-site physical inspection conducted on May 21,  1986  and  that
          pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 
          the Administrator was authorized to reduce the re t  upon  deter-
          mining that the owner had failed to maintain services.  The owner 
          has not submitted any evidence to  establish  that  the  required
          repairs were completed before the order was issued.

          However, with reference to the owner's assertion that painting is 
          not an essential service included in the maximum legal rent,  the
          Commissioner finds that the order issued July 23, 19 1  corrobor-
          ates this statement.  Therefore, so much of  the  Administrator's
          order, issued March 12, 1987, reducing the maximum legal rent  by
          $20.00 a month for failure to paint is revoked.

          The tenant may pay any arrears due as a result of this  order  in
          twenty-four (24) equal monthly installments.







          BD 420285-RO

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to file the appropriate application with the Division for a 
          restoration of rents based upon the restoration of  services,  if
          the facts so warrant.


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

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


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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