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 110146-RT
                                         :  
                                            DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
       LUCILLE KUPCS                        DOCKET NO.: AJ 110013-OR
                           PETITIONER    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             


           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     On September  1,  1987,  the  above-named  tenant  filed  a  petition  for
     administrative review of an order issued on August 24, 1987, by a District 
     Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment 
     2, 77-18 249th Street, Bellerose, New York, wherein rent was restored  due
     to a restoration of service, effective on November 1, 1986.

     The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the  record  and  has
     carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant  to  the  issues
     raised by the petition for review.

     On October 21, 1986  the  tenant  interposed  an  answer  to  the  owner's
     application stating, "To date linoleum has not been replaced.

     On June 30, 1987, a physical  inspection  of  the  subject  apartment  was
     carried out by the Division of Housing and Community  Renewal  DHCR.   The
     inspector, in his report, noted that the apartment had been  painted,  the
     linoleum replaced, and that there was no evidence  of  the  stove's  being
     defective.

     On August 24, 19987 the District Rent Administrator issued the order  here
     under review finding that a  restoration  of  services  had  occurred  and
     restoring the tenant's rent to its  former  level  effective  November  1,
     1986.

     In her petition for administrative review the tenant requests reversal  of
     the administrator's order alleging  inter  alia  that  the  peeling  paint
     condition had recurred and that the September 21, 1987 DHCR inspection and 
     order under docket  number  AD  110012-OR  corroborates  this  fact.   She
     further alleges that the linoleum has a hole in it.

     The owner did not interpose an answer to the  tenant's  petition  although
     afforded the opportunity to do so.

     After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that  this
     petition should be denied.









          DOCKET NUMBER: BI 110146-RT
     The Commissioner notes that the tenant in her October 21, 1986  answer  to
     the owner's application alleged  only  that  the  linoleum  had  not  been
     replaced.  The inspection carried  out  on  June  30,  1987  revealed  the
     contrary.  The tenant had  raised  no  other  objections  to  the  owner's
     application.   Accordingly,  based  upon  the  entire  record  before  the
     administrator the Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the  order  under
     review was warranted.

     The  Commissioner  notes  that  the  order  issued  on  November  6,  1987
     purporting to deny the owner's rent restoration application is of no legal 
     effect since the rent had already been restored.  The inspection conducted 
     on September 21, 1987, nevertheless is of evidentiary value in that it  is
     probative of conditions existing on that date.  However, the  Commissioner
     notes that the inspection cited by the tenant occurred more than two years 
     after the inspection which established the diminution of service and  more
     than one year after the tenant informed that  Compliance  Bureau  of  this
     Division that painting had  been  effectuated  in  a  workmanlike  manner.
     Accordingly, based upon a preponderance of the  evidence  and  a  lack  of
     evidentiary showing to the contrary the Commissioner can not find that the 
     conditions cited in the September 21, 1987 inspection were related to  the
     original  diminution  of  service  and  not  of  independent  origin   and
     causation.

     Accordingly, this order and opinion is issued  without  prejudice  to  the
     tenant's rights as they may pertain to a de novo application  for  a  rent
     reduction based upon a diminution of service.

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

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

     ISSUED:










                                                                   
                                             ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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