BG 610308 RT
                                  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.: BG 610308 RT
                                                  
                                                  RENT
          ETHLYN JEAN                             ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: TC 084298 P
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On July 31, 1987 the above named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued June 30, 1987. The order concerned 
          housing accommodations known as Apt 4H located at 1001 Jerome Ave., 
          Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator issued an order directing 
          restoration of certain services in the tenants' apartment.

               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 March 9, 1984 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein she  
          alleged the following services deficiencies:

                    1.   Water leaks throughout apartment,

                    2.   Defective electrical system,

                    3.   Defective bathroom and kitchen drainage,

                    4.   Apartment painted in unworkmanlike manner,

                    5.   Inadequate bathroom hot water.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on November 
          7, 1984 and stated that it would attend to the repairs.
           
               The Administrator sent the tenant a request for information on 
          January 11, 1985.  The tenant was afforded 10 days to respond to 
          that notice and provide the requested information.  When the tenant 
          did not respond the Administrator dismissed the complaint on March 












          BG 610308 RT

          4, 1985.  

               On July 23, 1985 the tenant sent the Administrator a letter 
          and requested that the case be reopened.  She stated that she had 
          responded to the Administrator's January 15, 1985 notice before 
          issuance of the dismissal order.  The Administrator reviewed the 
          record and ordered the proceeding reopened in an order issued July 
          25, 1985.  The parties were again afforded an opportunity to 
          respond.

               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on August 2, 1985 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Foyer ceiling and walls are peeling paint and 
                         plaster and water stained; dining area ceiling is 
                         water stained; living room ceiling is water stained 
                         and the living room wall adjoining an exterior wall 
                         is peeling paint and plaster; the master bedroom 
                         ceiling is peeling paint; the master bedroom wall 
                         is peeling paint and plaster; two master bedroom 
                         closets are peeling paint and plaster; bathroom 
                         wall adjoining and exterior wall is peeling paint 
                         and plaster,

                    2.   Living room has one defective electrical outlet and 
                         second bedroom wall outlet was repaired in 
                         unworkmanlike manner,

                    3.   The master bedroom wall was painted in an 
                         unworkmanlike manner,

                    4.   Bathroom sink drain missing mechanical stopper.

          The inspector reported that there was no evidence of defective 
          kitchen drainage.  

               On October 16, 1985 the Administrator received a letter from 
          the owner.  The owner stated that the above repairs had not been 
          attended to because the tenant refused to provide access.  On 
          October 18, 1985 the parties were served with a notice directing 
          the tenant to provide access to the owner on Monday November 4, 
          1985 at 9:00 AM.  Both parties were advised to notify the agency if 
          access had been provided and the required repairs made.  Neither 
          party responded to the notice.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          February 12, 1986.  The Administrator set forth the report of the 
          inspector and noted that the tenant had withdrawn her complaint of 
          inadequate hot water.  The Administrator directed the owner to 
          restore the services reported by the inspector as not being 
          maintained.  However, based on the failure of the parties to 






          BG 610308 RT

          respond to the October 18, 1985 notice requiring the tenant to 
          provide access, the Administrator declined to order a rent 
          reduction.

               On appeal the tenant states the following:

                    1.   Non-compliance,

                    2.   Ignored rent reduction,

                    3.   Repairs not completed,

                    4.   Raises in rent.

               The owner filed a response on December 12, 1987 and stated 
          that the tenant refuses to provide access for repair work to be 
          done.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The petition for administrative review submitted by the tenant 
          clearly shows that the petitioner has not put a specific 
          justiciable issue before the Commissioner nor does the petition set 
          forth any reasons to challenge the Administrator's order.  If the 
          owner has not complied with the Administrator's directive to 
          restore services, the tenant is advised to contact the Compliance 
          Unit of the DHCR and begin a proceeding to compel the owner to 
          comply.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is

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

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting 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