BJ 220069-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.:   
                                                  BJ 220069-RO                
                 ROSE   REALTY   COMPANY,               RENT    ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  BF 210075-S
                                  PETITIONER      TENANT: GLADYS COOPERMAN
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   
                                          

          On October 29, 1987, the above-named owner filed a  Petition  for
          Administrative Review of an order issued on October 9,  1987,  by
          the District Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, 
          New York, concerning the housing accommodation  known  as  Apart-
          ment 2-X at 1120  Brighton  Beach  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  New  York,
          wherein the Administrator directed the restoration  of  services,
          further finding that a rent  reduction  based  thereon  was  war-
          ranted.

          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 administrative review.

          On June 15, 1987 the subject rent-controlled tenant filed a
          complaint of a reduction  in  services  further  seeking  a  rent
          reduction based thereon.

          On August 12, 1987 the owner interposed an answer to the tenant's 
          complaint alleging that the tenant was entitled to  a  paint  job
          and she "may contact our painter Jimmy directly . . . to set up a 
          mutually convenient appointment."

          On September 2, 1987 a physical inspection of the subject housing 
          accommodation was  conducted  by  the  Division  of  Housing  and
          Community Renewal (DHCR).  The inspector's report confirmed  that
          the tenant's kitchen ceiling was badly damaged  from  water,  the
          entire ceiling exhibiting cracked and water damaged plaster.  


          That report also  stated  that  the  small  bedroom  ceiling  had
          cracked plaster, and the living room walls and ceiling,  as  well
          as the foyer ceiling had peeling paint.

          On October 9, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here 
          under review, finding that a diminution of services had  occurred
          (that is "kitchen ceiling is badly water  damaged,  plus  peeling
          plaster") and reducing the tenant's rent by $4.00 a month.








          BJ 220069-RO
          In its petition, the owner contends that the Administrator  erred
          in that its answer of  August  12,  1987  shifted  the  onus  for
          getting the defects repaired to the tenant and it was inequitable 
          to reduce the rent the owner was entitled to receive because,  in
          essence, the tenant did not arrange  for  the  work  to  be  done
          before the rent reduction order was issued.

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

          The Commissioner finds that in the owner's August 12, 1987 answer 
          below, the owner did not state that it had communicated  directly
          with the tenant to advise her of the availability of the  owner's
          painter.  The Commissioner also finds that the defect  complained
          of involved extensive  water  damage  which  may  not  have  been
          repairable by a paint job.  The owner did not address this latter 
          issue at all.  The Commissioner, therefore, finds that  the  own-
          er's answer below did not shift the onus to the tenant for seeing 
          that the repairs were timely done; and the Administrator's  order
          reducing the rent should be affirmed.
           

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the City Rent Law 
          and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is,

          ORDERED, that this Petition for Administrative Review be, and the 
          same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent  Adminis-
          trator 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