CF410033RO                                 
                                  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.:              
CF410033RO
                     PUTNAM REALTY,   
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BC410144S 
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review (PAR) of an order issued concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 65 Morton Street, Apartment 3-J, 
          New York, New York.

          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.             

          The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on 
          March 2, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          certain services in the subject apartment.

          In an answer, the owner stated that the tenants answered a ques- 
          tionnaire which polled their opinions on the state of the services 
          in the building and none of the services received a poor rating.  
          He further stated that the tenant is using these complaints to buy 
          time because of his inability to pay his rent due to changes in his 
          financial situation.  The owner also claimed that he could not 
          obtain access to the tenant's apartment to do the necessary repair 
          work.  

          The tenant responded that he has always made his apartment acces- 
          sible for repairs.

          An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted by a Division 
          of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector on July 24, 1987 
          who confirmed the existence of the following defective conditions:














          CF410033RO                                 



               1.   Pilot light on stove was defective.
               2.   Evidence of mice infestation.
               3.   Electric wiring in living room ceiling fixture 
                    was corroded.

          A second inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on 
          September 11, 1987, on items that were missing from the first 
          inspection.  The following defective conditions were found to 
          exist:

               1.   Shut off valve in the bathroom leaks.  There 
                    is leak damage to the tiles in the bathroom.
               2.   Approximately one square foot of tiles were 
                    missing from over the bathroom faucets.
               3.   Evidence of roach infestation.
               4.   Defective fixture in kitchen/living room 
                    ceiling.

          Based on the conflicting claims regarding access, an inspection for 
          access was scheduled for March 7, 1989. The tenant provided access, 
          however, the owner did not appear at the appointed time. The second 
          inspection for access was scheduled for March 16, 1988.  At that 
          time the following defective items existed:

               1.   Apartment walls and ceiling have peeling paint 
                    and plaster.  There are cracks due to water 
                    leak damage.

               2.   The light fixture in the bathroom is inopera- 
                    tive.

          The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and 
          further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent. 

          In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in 
          substance, that the bathroom light fixture is brand new and in good 
          working order.  Also, the entire apartment is in the process of 
          being replastered and painted wherever necessary.

          The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on July 19, 
          1988.  The tenant answered that the bathroom light fixture does not 
          work, the water damage in the ceiling has damaged the electrical 
          wiring and the ceiling, the apartment has not been replastered and 
          painted and the owner's claims of no-access are unfounded since he 
          has the keys to the apartment. 











          CF410033RO                                 

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

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the 
          tenant, where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain 
          required services.  The owner's petition does not establish any 
          basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which 
          determined that the owner was not maintaining required services 
          based on a physical inspection confirming the existence of de- 
          fective conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent 
          reduction is warranted.

          The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restora-
          tion application was granted on October 15, 1991 (Docket No. 
          FG410063OR).

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          Order and Opinion.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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