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
|
