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.: CA210349RO
DOCKET NO.: AL2100330R
PREMISES: 4514 10th Ave.
PETITIONER Brooklyn, N.Y.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on November 12, 1987
concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above-
described docket number.
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.
This proceeding was commenced on December 29, 1986 by the
owner filing an application to restore rent based on the
restoration of services for which a rent reduction order was issued
under docket number KS002698S.
By a notice dated May 4, 1987, DHCR informed the tenant of the
In an answer filed on May 26, 1987, the tenant asserted in
substance that defective conditions continue to exist in the
subject apartment. The tenant submitted copies of his original
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on October 9, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed
the existence of defective conditions.
Based on the inspection, the Administrator determined that the
bathroom ceiling is cracked; that the paint is peeling from the
bathroom wall; that there are cracked plaster and holes on the
bathroom ceiling and wall; that the wall was repaired in an
unworkmanlike manner; and that the paneling was removed from the
bathroom wall and not replaced. The Administrator denied on
November 12, 1987 the owner's application and terminated the proceeding.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
in substance that repairs were completed and that the owner fully
complied with the order under docket number KS002698S. The owner
submits a copy of a letter from the Compliance Unit of DHCR,
stating that an inspection conducted on November 19, 1986 revealed
"no evidence of peeling paint and plaster or leak damages on the
On January 27, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the owner's
petition to the tenant.
In an answer filed on April 6, 1988, the tenant stated that
the defective conditions remained because the owner hurriedly
painted the ceiling when the tenant was not in the apartment and
before the inspector came on November 19, 1986; and that the report
does not address the other defective conditions cited in the rent
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should
The Administrator's determination was based upon a staff
inspector's report which found defective conditions within the
apartment. The determination was in all respects proper and is
The Compliance Unit inspection report dated November 19, 1986
does not address the cracked bathroom ceiling, the peeling paint
from the bathroom wall, the cracked plaster and hole in the
bathroom ceiling and wall, the wall repaired in an unworkmanlike
manner, and the removed paneling from the bathroom wall.
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 Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
Joseph A. D'Agosta