BH110243RO
                                  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.:   
                                                  BH110243RO             
                    RICHARD ALBERT,    
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:    
                                  PETITIONER      AK110762S    
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On August 6, 1987, the above-named petitioner owner filed a peti- 
          tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July 15, 
          1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda- 
          tion known as 93-41 222nd Street, Apartment 3-A, Queens Village,  
          New York, wherein the Administrator reduced the rent based on a 
          finding of reduction in services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint by the 
          tenant on September 15, 1986 alleging that the apartment is 
          infested with roaches and mice.  On June 4, 1987 an inspection by 
          a Division employee confirmed the existence of roach infestation 
          resulting in the Administrator's order of July 15, 1987 which 
          reduced the rent.

          In his PAR, the owner contends that extermination services are 
          provided on a monthly basis; that at a hearing held in connection 
          with another docket the agency determined that there was in fact 
          monthly extermination service and the finding in this case is 
          therefore inconsistent with said determination; that the com- 
          plaining tenants have never requested extermination and therefore 
          cannot be heard to complain.  In addition, the owner contends that 
          the tenants did not give notice of the condition before complaining 
          to the Division; that this complaint was actually instigated by 
          another tenant in an effort to harass the owner; and that the rent 
          reduction is unjustified and the tenant should be penalized.













          BH110243RO




          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be 
          denied.

          The Administrator's order says that there is evidence of roach 
          infestation.  There has been no finding that extermination is not 
          being provided or is not made available to tenants desirous of the 
          service.  That this agency, in another docket, found that exter- 
          mination is provided monthly, does not contradict the inspection 
          results in this case.  The Commissioner notes that extermination, 
          if performed, has been ineffective and such was evident at the time 
          of inspection.  The owner submits no evidence in the form of a log 
          or list to show that these tenants have not availed themselves of 
          extermination service as the owner has alleged. There is no 
          requirement that the tenant give notice to the owner prior to 
          filing a complaint with this Division.  In any event the owner was 
          given notice of the tenant's complaint by this agency on January 
          15, 1987.

          The Commissioner has considered the owner's other contentions and 
          finds them to be without merit.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the June 4, 
          1987 physical inspection; and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of 
          the Code, a rent reduction is warranted based on the finding that 
          the owner has failed to maintain required services.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili- 
          zation Law and Code, it is

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

           
          ISSUED:




                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Deputy Commissioner












          BH110243RO