BJ 130195 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433


          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  BJ 130195-RO
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
            ALFRED S. FRIEDMAN MGMT. CORP.,     DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  ZQ 000346-OR
                                                  PREMISES: 
                                                  143-20 37th Avenue
                                   PETITIONER     Apt. 2-F, Flushing, NY
          ----------------------------------x 
                          
                                                            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          The above-named petitioner-owner, by its managing agent, filed  a
          timely petition for administrative  review  of  an  order  issued
          concerning  the  housing  accommodation  relating  to  the  above
          described docket number.

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

          The tenant  obtained  a  rent  reduction  under  Docket  No.  ZQS
          0013240-S issued August 13, 1985 due to the  owner's  failure  to
          make repairs to the kitchen faucet and  the  bathroom  walls  and
          because the entire apartment was in need of painting.

          By application dated December 18, 1985 the landlord asserted that 
          the  services  had  been  restored.   The  tenant  answered   the
          application on March 28, 1986 alleging that rust  still  remained
          around the kitchen faucet, that the recent  paint  job  had  been
          done in an unworkmanlike manner,  that  a  hole  existed  in  her
          bathroom ceiling, the bathroom walls were  still  unrepaired  and
          not all rooms were painted.

          Thereafter, on February 18, 1987 an  inspection  of  the  subject
          apartment was conducted by a DHCR inspector who found the kitchen 
          faucet leaking and rusted around the base, the bathroom ceiling
          had a hole in it due to a leak from  above,  the  bathroom  walls
          were peeling and in need of painting and plastering  due  to  the
          leak and some other rooms were also in need of painting.

          On September 28, 1987 an order was issued  under  Docket  No.  ZQ
          000346-OR denying  the  landlord's  application  for  restoration
          based on the February 18, 1987 inspection. 

          In its petition the owner alleges that the apartment was  painted
          on September 12, 1985 and it was unfair to inspect  the  job  two
          years later.  It was also claimed that the  faucet  was  replaced






          BJ 130195 RO
          two years prior to the inspection.  A copy of a  bill  from  Earl
          Galbreath dated July 29, 1985 billing for painting  done  in  the
          subject apartment along with a statement from the tenant  stating
          the painting was done except for one room, were also submitted.

          After a careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be denied.  The Commissioner finds  that
          the Administrator properly based his determination on the  entire
          record; including the results of the on-site physical  inspection
          conducted on February 18, 1987.  That  inspection  revealed  that
          the kitchen faucet was still leaking and was rusty at  the  base,
          the bathroom walls were still in need of repair in that paint was 
          peeling due to leaks  from  the  above  and  while  painting  had
          clearly taken place since the rent reduction order, the work  had
          not been completed as not all rooms were painted and the bathroom 
          was in a deteriorated state due to leaks.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          rights to file a rent restoration services application subsequent 
          to the time period covered by the rent restoration order at issue 
          in this proceeding.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Evictions Regulations, 
          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
                                                   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