CA210349RO
                                  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.: CA210349RO 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: AL2100330R       
                    I. KAHANA,                                      
                                                PREMISES: 4514 10th Ave.
                                                          Apt. #B3
                                 PETITIONER               Brooklyn, N.Y.
          ----------------------------------x                      
                                                                       
            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 
          owner's application.

               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 
          complaint.

               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.












          CA210349RO

               

               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 
          bathroom ceiling."

               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 
          reduction order.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should 
          be denied.

               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 
          hereby sustained.

               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 
          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