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.: BH210204RO

                                    :   DRO ORDER NO.: AG210931S
          
     GILBERT SCOTT                      PREMISES:  359 St. John's Place
                                   :              Apartment:  #2L
                                                  Brooklyn, New York

                         PETITIONER  :
     ------------------------------------X


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


     The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative review concerning the 
     housing accommodations 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.

     On December 9, 1985, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint of 
     decrease in services.

     On July 16, 1986, the Rent Administrator served the tenant with a new complaint form, 
     requesting that it be completed and returned within twenty days, because the issues raised 
     in the original complaint of December 9, 1985, were not clear.

     On July 23, 1986, the tenant resubmitted his complaint asserting that the owner failed to 
     maintain the following services:

               1).  There were broken windows with rotten frames.  
                     The glass was broken on the storm windows.

               2).  There was a large hole in the bedroom ceiling.

               3).  There were large cracks on the living room walls.

               4).  There was a hole in the bathroom ceiling.

               5).  The kitchen ceiling was falling.

               6).  The entire apartment needed a paint job.

     On January 28, 1987, the owner was served with the complaint and afforded twenty days to 
     interpose an answer.
     BH210204RO







          PAR DOCKET NO.:  BH 210204-RO

                                         (1)



     On February 2, 1987, the owner interposed an answer, stating in pertinent part that to his 
     knowledge all necessary repairs, rent impairing and otherwise, had been successfully 
     completed in that subject apartment.

     The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject premises.  The inspection was 
     conducted on May 26, 1987, and revealed that:

               1).  The owner had replaced the windows.

               2).  The small bedroom ceiling was cracked and was 
                    peeling paint and plaster.

               3).  The tenant had repaired the living room wall.

               4).  The master bedroom had a leak damaged, water-
                    stained ceiling and wall.

               5).  The owner had made repairs to the living room wall 
                    and the kitchen ceiling but they were not painted.

               6).  The small bedroom had a hole.

               7).  The hall wall was cracked and bulging.

               8).  The bathroom ceiling and wall were peeling paint 
                      and plaster.

     Based on the inspector's report, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under review 
     wherein a rent reduction was ordered.

     In the petition, the owner states, in substance, that all the repairs were done prior to 
     receiving the tenant's complaint from the Division, and, therefore his answer to the 
     complaint below asserted that the repairs were completed.  In addition, the owner states that 
     when Rent Administration was under the jurisdiction of the City of New York, there was one 
     form for repairs and another for painting and that he is not an expert on the various forms.  
     Thus, he did not understand that he had to explain that the apartment had been painted in 
     October 1984 and was not yet due for another painting.  The owner went on to state that the 
     apartment was again painted during May 1987, prior to the order's date of issuance.

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

     The owner's contentions in his petition do not warrant modification or revocation of the Rent 
     Administrator's order.  The owner's statement regarding the completion of repairs prior to 
     receiving the complaint is contradicted by the inspection report which found peeling paint 
     and plaster throughout the apartment and water stained ceilings.  With respect to the owner's 
     statement regarding the form used to notify him that the apartment required a painting, the 
     Commissioner finds that the complaint sufficiently put the owner on notice of the conditions 
     complained of, including the need for painting.  





     BH210204RO

                                         (2)



          PAR DOCKET NO.:  BH 210204-RO



     With regard to the allegations that the apartment was not due for painting, this claim is 
     raised for the first time in the petition.  Thus, it is beyond the scope of review of 
     administrative appeals which is limited to a review of facts or evidence before the Rent 
     Administrator.

     It is also noted that the owner did not submit any evidence to substantiate the claim that 
     painting was done in October 1984 and again in May 1987.  Moreover, even if painting was not 
     yet due when the tenant filed the complaint, special circumstances such as leak damaged 
     ceilings and plaster repairs may necessitate painting sooner than the three year interval 
     mandated by the Housing Maintenance Code.

     Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner finds the order here under review 
     was warranted, pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code which requires the 
     Division to order a rent reduction upon application by a tenant, when it is found that the 
     owner has failed to maintain required services.

     The Commissioner notes that on June 20, 1988, under docket number BJ 210150-OR, the owner's 
     application for a restoration of rent, based on a restoration of services was granted.

     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 Rent 
     Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is affirmed.




     Issued:                                                                    
                                                    Joseph A. D'Agosta
                                                   Deputy Commissioner




















                                         (3)


    

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