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.:
M H M SPONSORS CO. CHESAPEAKE, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PREMISES: 201 E. 28th St.
PETITIONER Apt. 12-P, New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review against an order issued on December 11, 1987 concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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.
On April 24, 1987, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on June 12, 1987, the owner denied the
allegation in the tenant's complaint and otherwise asserted that
repairs had been performed.
On October 14, 1987, the tenant disputed the owner's repairs, and
requested an inspection to confirm that the complaint has not been
resolved. The tenant submitted photographs of defective condi-
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on November 4, 1987 by a Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR) staff member who confirmed the existence
of defective conditions.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and reduced the rent for the following
1. defective air conditioner in the bedroom,
2. water stained bathroom walls and ceilings,
3. bathtub not draining properly,
4. cracked and water stained hall floor board,
5. two defective and off-tracked hallway closet
6. rotting window sills and windows throughout
the apartment - need caulking, and
7. water-damaged bedroom ceiling.
In the petition for Administrative review, the owner contends that
the decreased services were not reported by the tenant; that items
(1), (3) and (5) as determined by the Administrator had been re-
paired; and that items (2), (4), (6) and (7) were not corrected due
to the tenant's refusal of access.
In answer, the tenant asserts that repairs on items (1), (3) and
(5) were defective, temporary and unworkmanlike; and that he never
denied access to the owner, rather the owner never responded to his
requests for scheduling of repairs.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was based on an on-site inspec-
tion which confirmed the existence of complained-of conditions.
The determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sus-
The owner's allegations that some repairs were made and that the
tenant refused access as to remaining repairs were unsubstantiated
in the petition and in the proceeding below.
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,
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,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA