BI 110063 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.: BI 110063 RO
                                                  
               HARRY OTTERMAN                     DISTRICT RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: AJ 110002 OR
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On September 4, 1987 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued July 31, 1987. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 6G located at 41-16 47th Avenue, 
          Sunnyside, N.Y.  The Administrator denied the owner's application 
          to restore rent.                       

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner commenced this proceeding on September 29, 1986 by 
          filing an Application to Restore Rent wherein he alleged that the 
          tenant has refused to permit him to restore services which formed 
          the basis of a rent reduction order bearing Docket No. Q 003807 S.  
          Specifically, the owner stated that the tenant refused to provide 
          access to a contractor who was ready to paint the living room 
          ceiling.  The application also took issue with the underlying rent 
          reduction order, which stated that the ceiling in question was 
          water stained from a water leak.  The owner stated that the tenant 
          had installed stucco on the ceiling but that the installation was 
          defective and left grey patches which accounted for the "stains" 
          reported by the inspector.  Finally, the owner stated that a 
          painting contractor had visited the subject apartment in March, 
          1986 but that the tenant refused to permit the contractor to paint 
          the living room and kitchen.  Annexed to the application  are a 
          paid bill, cancelled check and sworn affidavit from the painting 
          contractor.  The affidavit states that the tenant did not allow the 
          contractor to paint the kitchen and living room, telling him "she 
          would take care of these rooms herself".

               The tenant was served with a copy of the complaint and 
          afforded an opportunity to respond. The tenant filed a response on 












          BI 110063 RO

          October 22, 1986 and stated that the owner had not repaired the 
          water leak and that it would have been ridiculous to allow the 
          ceiling to be painted when the leak had not been repaired and the 
          ceiling would become waterlogged again.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on February 23, 1987 and 
          revealed that part of the living room ceiling and adjacent wall 
          were water stained and that the ceiling on the opposite side is 
          bulging due to water seepage from the roof.
                                                                             
               The Administrator issued the order here under review on July 
          31, 1987 and denied the owner's application based on the 
          inspector's report.

               On appeal the owner, through counsel, states that there is no 
          leak in the living room ceiling, that the ceiling is not water 
          stained, that a new roof had been installed to correct the water 
          seepage problem, that the "water stains" were caused by work done 
          by the tenant, that the owner's painting contractor was not allowed 
          to paint the kitchen and living room, and that the owner was 
          entitled to notice of the inspection and a copy of the report.

               The tenant filed a response on December 9, 1987 and stated 
          that the ceiling is still water stained, that no decorative work 
          has been done to the ceiling and that access was not denied to the 
          owner's painter.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner filed an administrative 
          appeal of the underlying rent reduction order (Docket No. ARL 12284 
          Q).  In that appeal, the owner essentially raises the same 
          arguments he now raises regarding the denial of the rent 
          restoration application.  The Commissioner notes that, on May 26, 
          1989 an Order and Opinion Denying Petition for Administrative 
          Review was issued regarding the appeal for the rent reduction 
          order.  The owner's arguments were rejected by the Commissioner.  
          The instant application is merely an attempt to reargue claims 
          which have been rejected.  Since the matter is res judicata and 
          since the owner has not stated any independent grounds for 
          overturning the order here under review, the order is affirmed.

               The Commissioner notes that the owner has refiled for rent 
          restoration and said application was granted on May 27, 1988 (see 
          Docket No. BL 110066 OR).

               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 






          BI 110063 RO

          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