ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO


                                  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.:              
                                                 BI110127RO
                                              :  
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                                 DOCKET NO.: 
                                                 AG110525S
                                                 
               ANURAG SUPERMARKET CORP.          


                                                 
                                                                             
                                      
                                             
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On September 8, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed 
          a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          August 3, 1987 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as Apartment 3G, 162-05 89th Avenue, Jamaica, 
          N.Y., wherein the Administrator reduced the rent upon a finding of 
          a decrease 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 on July 26, 1986 by the filing 
          of a complaint by the tenant alleging a decrease in apartment 
          services.

               On October 14, 1986 a Division employee conducted an 
          inspection of the apartment which confirmed the complained of 
          conditions and resulted in the August 3, 1987 order reducing the 
          rent. 














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO

               In the PAR, the owner contends that when served with a copy of 
          the tenant's complaint the owner responded to the agency and asked 
          for a clarification of what work needed to be done and that, in 
          essence, it had insufficient notice of the complained of 
          conditions.

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

               The record reveals that the tenant's complaint form filed with 
          this agency was accompanied by an attachment.  The attachment is a 
          form used by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development 
          - Office of Rent and Housing Maintenance and is captioned, 
          Certificate of Violation Correction.  The form states that the 
          owner certifies that all the work necessary to remove all the 
          violations in the subject apartment has been completed.  The 
          conditions certified by the owner to have been corrected are listed 
          by the owner on that form and included painting and plastering the 
          bathroom and kitchen, repairs to the bathroom floor tiles and 
          kitchen windows, and eradication of roach and mice infestation.

               On the complaint form itself the tenant checked the box 
          indicating that she is applying for a rent reduction because of the 
          owner's failure to maintain services as specified therein.  On the 
          reverse side of the complaint form the tenant refers to the 
          attached certificate signed by the owner and states that the owner 
          has not done the work contained in the certification.  The tenant's 
          complaint also states, "I have filed with DHCR owner's failure to 
          renew lease forms docket # AF 110172 RV."

               When served with the tenant's complaint the owner responded on 
          September 3, 1986 that he did not understand what the tenant wants, 
          that the papers attached to her complaint are the ones which the 
          owner mailed to the tenant for "double no access to the Code 
          Enforcement Inspectors," that he needs clarification of what kind 
          of repairs the tenant needs, and that the tenant has been mailed a 
          two year lease to sign. 

               Inasmuch as the owner's answer to the tenant's complaint 
          addresses that portion of the complaint which refers to the failure 
          to renew the tenant's lease, the Commissioner finds that the owner 
          was sufficiently notified and should have been aware of the 
          substance of the tenant's complaint which was that the owner had 
          not done the work contained in the certification attached to the 
          complaint.  Although the owner's certification indicated that the 
          violations were corrected in February and April, 1986, the 
          Division's inspection conducted on October 14, 1986 found that  



          plaster repair and painting had been done in an unworkmanlike 
          manner, the bathroom floor tiles were cracked and broken in 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: BI110127RO

          numerous places, new windows were installed but the caulking is 
          unworkmanlike, and there was vermin infestation.  The barest 
          inquiry would have made this apparent to the owner.  It, therefore, 
          cannot be concluded that the complaint did not give the owner 
          sufficient notice of the complained of conditions.   

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the October 14, 1986 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 Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is  

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

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          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