STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: BK410151RT
Cecile Champoux, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BB410637S
PETITIONER PREMISES: 501 E. 87th St.
----------------------------------x Apt. 5B
New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on September 28, 1987
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number wherein the Administrator directed the
owner to restore certain services to the required level.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order
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 administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on February 19, 1987 by a rent-
stabilized tenant filing a statement of complaint of decrease in
services, asserting that the owner failed to maintain numerous
services in the subject apartment. The tenant enumerated in her
attachments to the complaint the defective conditions in the
kitchen floor, kitchen cabinets, parquet floor, window frames,
bathroom ceiling, marble top in bathroom, bathroom sink cabinet,
paint quality and damage by repair people on her works of art and
On March 6, 1987, the Division mailed to the owner a copy of
the tenant's complaint. The owner failed to respond.
On August 25, 1987, an on-site inspection of numerous items in
the subject apartment was conducted by a Division staff member who
reported many services maintained, repairs made and the apartment
recently painted. The only remaining items were: loose parquet
flooring at the bedroom floor, rust spots at the living room and
kitchen window frame, peeling paint and plaster on the recently
painted bathroom ceiling, and a hairline crack on the bathroom
marble top which does not affect its operation.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator issued the order
appealed herein, directing the owner to restore the services cited
in the inspection report.
In the petition for administrative review, the tenant contends
that the Administrator's order does not reflect the totality of the
items listed in the complaint. She claims that she should be
reimbursed for the kitchen floor she installed in 1983, that the
kitchen cabinets need to be refinished, that the parquet floors
need to be replaced throughout the apartment, that the window
frames are peeling and cracked, that the bathroom cabinet needs to
be replaced, that a new paint job is required, and that the
tenant's personal property has been damaged by leaks, floods and
maintenance staff, for which compensation is requested.
The tenant also states in her petition that the owner has not
complied with various other orders issued by DHCR including an
overcharge, lease renewal, and building wide services orders.
On January 13, 1988, the Division mailed to the owner a copy
of the tenant's petition.
In answer, the owner stated that it had repaired all items
stated in the order except the parquet floor which the tenant had
refused the building staff to repair because she wants the entire
floors throughout the apartment replaced.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied, and that the
Administrator's order should be affirmed.
The Division has no authority to order reimbursement for the
kitchen floor installed by the tenant several years before the
complaint was filed. There is similarly no authority to order
compensation for damage to the tenant's personal property and the
tenant will have to pursue appropriate remedies for these claims in
a court of competent jurisdiction.
The inspector reported that the kitchen cabinets and the
bathroom cabinet were in good repair and the Commissioner deems it
appropriate to rely on the observations of the inspector, who is an
impartial agency employee, rather than the self-serving statements
of a party to the proceeding.
The inspector did report, consistent with the tenant's
allegations, that the parquet floor was loose in the bathroom, the
living room and kitchen window frames had rust spots, the bathroom
marble top had a hairline crack, and the bathroom ceiling had
peeling paint and plaster. The owner was directed to repair these
conditions but it is not appropriate for the tenant or DHCR to
dictate how such repairs are to be made. If the defective portions
of the parquet floor can be repaired in a workmanlike manner, the
owner need not replace the entire floor.
Based on a review of the entire record, the Commissioner finds
that the Administrator's order is correct.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that the petition for administrative review, and the
same hereby is, denied, and that the Administrator's order
(BB410637S) be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta