BI 210243-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
          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  BI 210243-RO         
                 JANOFF & OLSHAN, INC.,
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S       
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      AL 210505-S
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,


          On September 11, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          August 7, 1987, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodations know as Apartment 
          7-M, 52 Clark Street, Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Administrator 
          determined the tenant's complaint of a reduction of services filed 
          on December 23, 1986.

          The challenged order reduced the tenant's rent based on the results 
          of an inspection conducted on June 4, 1987, that confirmed the 
          tenant's complaint of illegal wiring, in that the living room and 
          bedroom had loose wires in ceiling light fixtures. Other complaints 
          were not substantiated, or had been corrected in a timely manner.
          The owner had advised the Administrator on February 5, 1987 that 
          the tenant had withdrawn the complaint in exchange for $200.00 
          compensation.  No documentation in support of this allegation was 
          submitted.

          On appeal, the owner requests that the rent reduction be revoked.  
          The owner reiterates the assertion below that the tenant had 
          effectively withdrawn the complaint.  An unexecuted copy of the 
          agreement, submitted for the first time on appeal, provided that, 
          in exchange for certain enumerated repairs and two hundred dollars 
          ($200.00), the tenant would withdraw the services complaint, as 
          well as an harassment complaint.  The defective wiring was not 
          listed as a condition requiring repairs.  As additional evidence 
          the owner submits the letter of June 30, 1987 from the Division's 
          Enforcement Bureau that the harassment complaint had been resolved, 
          and the cancelled check from the owner to the tenant, date stamped 
          January 27, 1987.

          The owner also asserts that the defective wires condition is the 
          result of the tenant running extension cords from available outlets 
          for her convenience.












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

          The evidence is not sufficiently probative to establish that the 
          parties executed the agreement alleged, withdrawing the services 
          complaint, in addition to resolving the harassment proceedings.  
          The owner's failure to provide an executed copy of the agreement, 
          although given the opportunity to do so in a request dated July 10, 
          1992, the fact that the check appears to have been drawn two months 
          prior to the draft of the agreement, the fact that a handwritten 
          endorsement on the reverse side of the check for "full settlement 
          of the Court Agreement" appears to be in a different handwriting 
          than that of the tenant's signature, all compel that the owner's 
          petition be denied.  Moreover the agreement does not refer to the 
          defective wiring condition among the items that the owner agreed to 
          repair.  The owner's contention that the wiring problem is caused 
          by the tenant's extension cords is preposterous since the condition 
          concerned loose wires in the ceiling fixtures.

          Additionally, while it does not appear that the tenant responded to 
          the owner's petition, in compliance proceedings subsequent to the 
          order, the tenant indicated that the condition had not been 
          corrected.  This statement is inconsistent with the tenant's pur- 
          ported but unsubstantiated allegation by the owner that the 
          complaint was withdrawn.

          Division records further reveal that the complaining tenant vacated 
          in 1989.  The owner has failed to apply for rent restoration.  The 
          owner is advised to apply for rent restoration predicated on a 
          restoration of service, as the facts may warrant.  A copy of the 
          instant order is being sent to the present occupant of the accommo- 
          dations.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza- 
          tion Law and Code, it is

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


          ISSUED:


                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Acting Deputy Commissioner