BK410151RT
                                  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.:  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 
          was correct. 

               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 
          paintings.

               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.












          BK410151RT

               


               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 






          BK410151RT

          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.




          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