BF610182RO
                                  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.: BF610182RO
                                                              (REOPENED)

          FIELDSTON ASSOCIATES, INC               RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: AG620844S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
               AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER AFTER REOPENING

               On November 17, 1992 the Commissioner granted the tenant's 
          request for reconsideration and reopening of a proceeding wherein 
          the owner's Petition for Administrative Review (Docket No. 
          BF610182RO) regarding Apartment 3K located at 3600 Fieldston 
          Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., was granted and the Administrator's order  
          (Docket No. AG620844S) reducing the maximum legal rent for the 
          subject apartment by $25.00 was revoked.  In the order reopening 
          the proceeding it was  stated that this matter was being 
          reconsidered solely for the purpose of calculating the amount of 
          arrears the tenant must repay.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record, including the 
          submissions made by the tenant in her request for reconsideration, 
          and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issue of 
          the amount of arrears owed by the tenant.

               The tenant filed a complaint on July 21, 1986 alleging that 
          the bedroom ceiling needed to be repainted because of a leak 
          occurring in December 1985.  The landlord responded to the 
          complaint on September 4, 1986, stating that the painting had been 
          completed.  The tenant advised on October 26, 1986 that no repairs 
          had been made and requested that an inspector visit the premises.  
          However, when the inspector scheduled an appointment for November 
          20, 1986, the tenant telephoned the inspector and advised that the 
          repairs had been made and no inspection was required.

               The Rent Administrator's order issued on March 11, 1987 
          reduced the rent for this rent controlled apartment by $25.00 for 
          leaking kitchen faucets and a defective valve ($3.00), rusted 
          kitchen sink cabinet ($2.00), a fallen bedroom ceiling ($4.00), 
          various stove defects ($10.00) and exposed wires in the light 












          BF610182RO

          fixtures ($6.00).

               In the petition for administrative review, the landlord 
          attached a statement by a Robert Ramos that he had painted and 
          plastered the bedroom ceiling; repaired the kitchen faucets, light 
          fixtures, and kitchen cabinet; and had offered to replace the stove 
          but the tenant refused.

               In answer to the petition the tenant raises complaints about 
          a failure to paint her apartment, the lobby and the rusty fire 
          escapes; a defective refrigerator; a defective apartment door lock; 
          two warped windows; and leaky faucets in the kitchen and bathrooms.

               The Commissioner's order issued on April 29, 1992 granted the 
          petition and revoked the Administrator's order, finding that no 
          rent reduction was warranted.

               In her request for reconsideration, the tenant acknowledged 
          that she owed arrears totaling $20 per month based on the fact that 
          the Administrator had ordered rent reductions for conditions which 
          were inapplicable to her apartment (fallen bedroom ceiling, defects 
          in stove and oven, exposed wiring in bedrooms).  The tenant then 
          stated, however, that the Commissioner incorrectly ordered her to 
          refund arrears totaling $5.00 per month for the two conditions that 
          did apply to her apartment (leaking kitchen faucets and defective 
          valves, and rusted kitchen sink cabinet). 

               However a reexamination of the entire record reveals that the 
          owner's petition was properly granted and the rent reduction was 
          properly revoked.

               The complaint alleged only a need to repair the bedroom 
          ceiling and it was only that condition that the landlord was on 
          notice of the need to repair.  The complaint did not mention any of 
          the items which the tenant now claims are applicable to her 
          apartment, nor is such a complaint contained in any of the other 
          proceedings that this tenant has filed with the Division.  There 
          was also no inspection report substantiating the need for repairs 
          to the faucets and sink cabinet and therefore no finding that these 
          items actually required repair.

               There is a notation in the Examiner's Progress Sheet that an 
          inspection took place on December 26, 1986 and revealed the 
          conditions for which the rent was reduced.  However, since the file 
          does not contain such an inspection report, nor is it found in any 
          proceedings pertaining to the subject apartment and the conditions 
          cited have no relevance to the complaint, the notation appears to 
          be an error.

               Although the landlord does not allege in the petition lack of 
          notice of the conditions for which the rent was reduced, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that a rent reduction order issued 






          BF610182RO

          for which there was no complaint and no inspection cannot be 
          sustained. By the tenant's own admission in the subsequent 
          compliance proceeding, she has filed many complaints and has many 
          proceedings pending with the Division and has difficulty keeping 
          track of them all.  The landlord may reasonably have concluded that 
          the items in the order appealed herein were the subject of another 
          complaint and rather than assert that he had no knowledge of the 
          conditions, he attempted to make the necessary repairs.

               A review of the Division's records including all the other 
          proceedings involving the subject apartment reveals that leaking 
          faucets and defective valves and a rusted sink cabinet were not the 
          subject of any other complaint pending at the same time.

               The tenant's statement in the compliance proceeding that three 
          of the items in the order do not apply to her apartment supports 
          the determination herein that the rent reduction order was in 
          error.  The assertion that two items do apply to her apartment 
          cannot serve as a basis for sustaining a portion of a rent 
          reduction if no complaint for these items was ever filed.
               
               Moreover, a physical inspection on May 10, 1990 in the 
          aforementioned compliance proceeding finding the two supposedly 
          applicable items repaired cannot serve as a basis for a 
          determination that the rent should be restored as of that date when 
          there was never a determination that these items were defective.  
          The finding that all repairs were done in 1990 equally supports a 
          determination that these items were never defective.

               The rent reduction of $25.00 per month ordered on March 11, 
          1987 in Docket No. AG620844S must be revoked as of the date it was 
          issued.  There is no basis for affirming any part of the rent 
          reduction.  Pursuant to Section 2202.24 of the Rent and Eviction 
          Regulations, the tenant may pay the back rent in installments of 
          $25.00 per month until all arrears are paid.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City it is 










               ORDERED, that this petition be and the same hereby is granted 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          revoked.













          BF610182RO

          ISSUED:



                                                                      
                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA  
                                   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