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 
          APPEAL OF                               ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO. BL410313RO
          Joseph Pollack c/o                      DISTRICT RENT 
          Pearce Urstadt Mayer &  Greer             ADMINISTRAOTR'S  DOCKET
                                                  NO. LC0003314-S


                                   PETITIONER
          --------------------------------------x
           
          ORDER AND OPINION  DENYING  PETITION  FOR  ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW

          On December 22, 1987, the above-named  landlord  timely  filed  a
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on  January
          26, 1987 by a District Rent Administrator concerning the  housing
          accommodation known as Apartment 4-F, 251 West 89th  Street,  New
          York, New York, wherein rent was reduced due to a  diminution  of
          service.

          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.

          On March 21, 1985 the subject tenants filed a "Tenant's Statement 
          of Violations" based on the owner's alleged failure  to  maintain
          services alleging, among other things, that painting and  repairs
          in  the  subject  apartment  and  building  were   done   in   an
          unworkmanlike manner. 

          On April 16, 1985  the  landlord  interposed  an  answer  to  the
          tenant's complaint wherein it alleged, among other  things,  that
          building services were being maintained.

          On June 26, 1986 a physical inspection of  the  subject  premises
          was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community  Renewal
          (DHCR).  The inspector, in his report, noted that the second  and
          third floor halls needed painting, and that the subject apartment 
          had peeling paint and plaster.

          On January 26, 1987 the District Rent  Administrator  issued  the
          order her under review finding that a diminution of services  had
          occurred and reducing the tenant's rent by  10%  of  the  maximum
          Docket No. BL410313RO         - 2- 

          legal rent plus $4.00 per month,  effective  on  the  first  rent
          payment day following the issuance date of the order.  

          The landlord's petition asserts that it did not receive a copy of 






          the Administrator's order from D.H.C.R. because the  rent  agency
          mailed the order to the landlord's old address, and  not  to  its
          current address.  Furthermore, the landlord alleges that  certain
          repairs to the subject apartment were completed, but the  subject
          tenant would not permit the entire apartment to be painted.   The
          landlord further states that repairs in  the  public  halls  must
          have been in progress at the time of the filing  of  the  subject
          tenants' complaint, and that such repairs have  long  since  been
          completed.  Attached to the landlord's petition is a  copy  of  a
          paid bill for $324.75, dated  September  29,  1986,  for  certain
          repairs  done  in  the  subject  apartment  by   an   independent
          contractor.

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

          The Commissioner notes that  according  to  DHCR's  records  (the
          subject apartment's April 1,  1986  registration  statement)  the
          landlord's address that is listed is different from  the  address
          to which the Administrator mailed the order.  As the rent  agency
          did not mail the Administrator's order to the landlord's  address
          that was listed in DHCR's record, and as  the  landlord  credibly
          asserts non-receipt, the Commissioner is of the opinion that  the
          landlord's petition should be deemed to be timely filed.

          The issue raised in the petition regarding the alleged refusal of 
          the tenant to permit the painters to complete all repairs was not 
          raised in the proceeding before the District Rent  Administrator.
          Accordingly, it is outside the scope of the Commissioner's review 
          and will not be considered in this administrative  appeal.   Even
          if this issue were properly before the Commissioner, it is  noted
          that the landlord's assertion of the tenant's  refusal  to  allow
          all repairs to be completed is unsubstantiated in any event.

          As the inspector noted, in his  report,  that  the  public  halls
          required painting, the Commissioner is of the  opinion  that  the
          Administrator's finding pertaining to the public halls should not 
          be disturbed.  The Commissioner finds that the landlord does  not
          substantiate its assertion concerning the public halls  with  any
          probative evidence, but only makes the bare  assertion  that  the
          halls have been repaired.  Accordingly, the  Commissioner  is  of
          the opinion that the Administrator's order should be affirmed.







          Docket No. BL410313RO         - 3 -



          Therefore, in accordance with the City  Rent  and  Rehabilitation
          Law and the Rent and Eviction Regulation, 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
    

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