ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 110235 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 110235 RO  
                                              :         DISTRICT        RENT
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET NO. 
                                                 AK 110406 S
           DITMAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
                                PETITIONER    : 
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On November 25, 1987, the above-named owner filed a  petition
          for administrative review of an order issued on November  2,  1987
          by  the  District  Rent  Administrator  concerning   the   housing
          accommodations known as Apartment 3-E, 65-41 Saunders Street, Rego 
          Park, New York, wherein the rent was reduced due to  a  diminution
          of services.

               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.  

               The subject tenant filed an application for a rent  reduction
          dated November 17, 1986, which alleged, among other  things,  that
          the bathtub was not usable because it was coated with paint;  that
          the kitchen cabinets  were  broken,  and  that  the  kitchen  sink
          leaked.  

               The owner, in its answer, dated January 5, 1987, stated  that
          the tenant denied access  to  the  subject  apartment  during  the
          building's superintendent's working hours,  which  allegedly  were
          from 8:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.   Attached  to
          the owner's answer was a memo sent by the  owner  to  the  tenant,
          dated November 28,  1986,  stating  that  the  subject  building's
          superintendent's working hours were from 8:30 A.M. to  5:30  P.M.,
          Monday through Friday. 

               On March 23,  1987  a  physical  inspection  of  the  subject
          apartment was conducted by the Division of Housing  and  Community
          Renewal (D.H.C.R.).  The inspector's report noted various  service
          defects.

               On October 1, 1987 D.H.C.R. mailed to both the owner and  the
          tenant a "Notice Of Inspection (For Access)" directing the  tenant
          and the  owner's  representative  "(workman)"  to  be  present  on
          October 8, 1987 at 9:00 A.M. to 9:30 A.M. to provide access to the 
          subject apartment for the purpose of making repairs.


               In the inspector's report, dated  October  8,  1987,  it  was
          noted that the inspector waited at the subject apartment from 9:00 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 110235 RO
          A.M. to 9:50 A.M.,  but  that  no  one  on  behalf  of  the  owner
          appeared.

               On November 2, 1987, the District Rent  Administrator  issued
          the order here under review, finding that a diminution of services 
          had occurred, and reducing the  tenant's  rent  to  the  level  in
          effect prior to the last guideline increase which commenced before 
          the effective date of the rent reduction,  January  1,  1987,  the
          first rent payment day after D.H.C.R. informed the  owner  of  the
          tenant's complaint.

               To its petition the owner attaches an "Application To Restore 
          Rent And/Or Collect  Rent  Adjustments,"  and  invoices  and  work
          orders showing when alleged  repairs  were  done  in  the  subject
          apartment.  The owner's petition asserts that the inspector failed 
          to show up for the access inspection, during  the  scheduled  date
          and time, that the finding of decreases in services was incorrect, 
          and that the defects found by the Administrator were repaired.   

               The tenant  submitted  an  answer  dated  January  13,  1988,
          asserting that the service defects determined by the Administrator 
          were not repaired, and that D.H.C.R.'s inspector appeared  at  the
          access inspection at the scheduled time and  place.   Attached  to
          the tenant's answer is a copy of the same memo which was  attached
          to the owner's answer to the Administrator, except that  the  copy
          which was sent to the tenant  and  is  attached  to  the  tenant's
          answer  states  that  the  working  hours   for   the   building's
          superintendent are from 8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M.  (Emphasis added) 

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

               As noted in the inspector's report, the inspector was at  the
          subject apartment during the scheduled time, but the owner  failed
          to appear,  either  alone  or  with  a  worker  to  make  repairs.
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner's assertion  of
          a lack of inspection is without merit. 

               The owner's veracity is further lessened by the fact that the 
          memo, dated November 28, 1986, submitted to the rent agency by the 
          tenant indicates that the superintendent works up  to  4:30  P.M.,
          but that the same memo submitted by  the  owner  states  that  the
          superintendent works until 5:30 P.M.  The Commissioner notes  that
          it is apparent that on the owner's copy of the aforementioned memo
          a previously typed number (in the portion of the  memo  pertaining
          to the superintendent's working hours) has the number "5"  written
          over it.  These discrepancies diminish  the  owner's  credibility.
           
               As to the owner's assertion  that  the  Rent  Administrator's
          finding that there was a decrease in services was  incorrect,  the
          record supports  the  conclusion  that  services  were  not  being
          adequately provided.  With respect to the owner's assertion that 

          repairs have been made, the Commissioner notes  that  the  owner's
          application to restore the rent is being sent to the  proper  unit
          at D.H.C.R.  for  processing,  and  for  a  determination  of  the
          application.  The Commissioner further notes that  this  order  is
          without prejudice to the owner's rent restoration application. 







          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO. BK 110235 RO
               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the  Administrator's
          order should be affirmed.
           
               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 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