ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 110212 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
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: BK 110212 RO  
                                              :  DRO DOCKET NO. ZAH110094 OR
                P.N. MANAGEMENT CORP. - OWNER               
                                                 Tenant: Lydea Berkeley
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On  November  4,  1987,  the  above-named  petitioner  timely
          refiled a Petition for  Administrative  Review  against  an  order
          issued on July 20, 1987 by the  Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union
          Hall  Street,   Jamaica,   New   York   concerning   the   housing
          accommodation known as  91-32  195th  Street,  Hollis,  New  York,
          Apartment No. 1L wherein  the  Administrator  denied  the  owner's
          application for a rent restoration.

               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 in the administrative appeal.  

               On August 11, 1986, this  proceeding  was  commenced  by  the
          owner's application to restore rent.  The rent  had  been  ordered
          reduced on July 11, 1984 in Order No. CDR 00251  which  had  found
          the following service deficiencies: the kitchen wall  is  wet  and
          has peeling paint and plaster and the bedroom walls have mildew.

               In conversation with the DHCR Compliance Bureau,  the  tenant
          indicated that the owner had  made  the  necessary  repairs.   The
          Compliance Bureau then advised the  owner  to  apply  for  a  rent
          restoration.

               After the application was filed, the tenant was requested  to
          confirm that the complaint had been resolved.

               In reply,  the  tenant  stated  that  although  a  corrective
          attempt by painting had been made, the same defective  conditions,
          i.e. moisture  and  mildew,  existed.   The  tenant  requested  an
          inspection.  

               On April 28, 1987, a staff member of  the  DHCR  conducted  a
          physical  inspection  of  the  subject  premises.   The  inspector
          reported that the heat was inadequate, the kitchen wall  and  area
          around the window were water-stained and  had  peeling  paint  and
          plaster, and the bedroom walls and ceilings had mildew.   



               Based on the results of the physical inspection conducted  on
          April 28, 1987, the Administrator determined  that  the  defective






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 110212 RO
          conditions  had  not  been  restored  and   denied   the   owner's
          application for Rent Restoration.

               In the appeal, the owner contends that the Compliance  Bureau
          had found that the necessary repairs had been completed  and  that
          the appealed order does not indicate non-compliance.

               The tenant contends that although repairs have been made, the 
          cause of the damages was never  corrected.   Since  the  defective
          conditions are still present, the repairs were not properly done.

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

               Despite  the  owner's  reliance  on  advice  given   by   the
          Compliance Bureau, whose conclusions were  made  without  physical
          inspection, subsequent physical inspection by another unit of  the
          DHCR revealed that the defects which led to the rent reduction had 
          not been corrected.  Although the owner  had  made  an  effort  to
          repair which the tenant reported to the Compliance Bureau,  events
          later proved  that  the  repairs  made  were  inadequate,  or  not
          properly done.  The order clearly states the basis of the  denial.
          Accordingly,  the  Commissioner  finds  that   the   Administrator
          correctly denied the owner's application.  

               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:







                                                                        
                                          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