BH 210174-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.:   
                                                  BH 210174-RO               
                       J. RIEGER,                 
                                                  D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      AJ 210441-S
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          On August 5, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an 
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on June 30, 1987, by 
          the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 130 Bay 
          Ridge Parkway, Apartment 2-D, Brooklyn, New York.

          The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator 
          properly reduced the rent of the subject apartment.  

          The tenant commenced this proceeding on October 22, 1986 by filing 
          a complaint in which he alleged that the owner had refused to 
          repair three badly water damaged rooms in the apartment or the 
          cause of leaks still occurring in the kitchen.  The tenant included 
          with the complaint copies of letters sent to the owner by certified 
          mail, signed for by the owner, notifying him of the need for 
          repairs but which the owner has denied receiving.  The record does 
          not contain an answer to the complaint.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, reduced 
          the rent of the tenant's apartment to the level in effect prior to 
          the last guideline increase effective January 1, 1987.  This order 
          was based upon an inspection which revealed:

               1.   The bathroom ceiling - further repairs needed - 
                                                     missing ceiling plaster.

               2.   Bedroom - the wall - small area of chipped paint.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asseverated that he never received 
          a copy of the tenant's complaint; that he painted the bathroom, the 
          bedroom and living room ceiling and that the conditions found by 
          the inspector are too minor to warrant a rent reduction.  He 











          BH 210174-RO



          encloses with the petition a copy of a letter dated December 8, 
          1986, addressed to the Division requesting a copy of the complaint 
          and a copy of a paid bill for painting and plastering of the 
          apartment on February 25, 1987.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          With respect to the owner's claim, on appeal, that he never 
          received a copy of the tenant's complaint, the record clearly shows 
          that the District Rent Administrator mailed a properly addressed 
          Notice and Transmittal of Tenant's Complaint to the owner on 
          December 2, 1986.  The letter the owner purports to have sent, 
          requesting a copy of the complaint, is not in the record and the 
          owner has not submitted any proof of mailing.  Moreover, the 
          letters sent by the tenant to the owner by certified mail establish 
          that the owner had actual knowledge of the conditions requiring 
          repair.

          As to the owner's contention that repairs were completed, an 
          inspection held on March 6, 1987 showed that although the painting 
          and plastering was completed as alleged by the owner; the work was 
          done in an unworkmanlike manner.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's attempts at rectifying the 
          service deficiencies is clear proof that he was aware of the nature 
          of the tenant's complaint.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the petitioner's conten- 
          tion of no notification is without merit.

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides, in perti- 
          nent part, that a tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of 
          the legal regulated rent to the level in effect prior to the most 
          recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR shall so reduce the rent 
          for the period for which it is found that the owner has failed to 
          maintain required services.  Required services are defined in 
          Section 2520.6(r) to include repairs and maintenance.

          The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator properly based 
          his determination on the entire record, including the results of 
          the on-site physical inspection conducted on March 6, 1987 and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was 
          mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to maintain services.










          BH 210174-RO

          However, the record also contains a statement by the tenant sub- 
          mitted on March 11, 1988, after issuance of the Administrator's 
          order, that the owner had completed all repairs on January 21, 1988 
          and that full rent payments were resumed on February 1, 1988.  In 
          accordance with the tenant's statement, the Commissioner deems it 
          appropriate to order restoration of the rent as of February 1, 
          1988.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,  
          it is,

          ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed, and it is further 

          ORDERED, that the rent be, and the same hereby is restored 
          effective February 1, 1988.


          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