CA410378RO
                                  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.: CA410378RO
                                                  
          ARTNOR REALTY CO.                       RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: AH410565S
                                  PETITIONER           BH410002RP 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                       AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

               On April 19, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner timely 
          refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of 
          the Rent Administrator issued October 20, 1987. The order concerned 
          housing accommodations known as Apt 4-C located at 60 E. 12th 
          Street, New York, N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a rent reduction 
          for failure to maintain required services.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 18, 1986 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he  
          alleged that he moved into the apartment in 1982; that unlike other 
          tenants in the building he never had an air conditioner in the 
          living room; that when he complained to the owner he was given a 
          used air conditioner in July, 1986 which does not function 
          properly; and that he was told by the owner that he, the tenant, is 
          responsible for maintenance and repair. The proceeding was assigned 
          Docket No. AH410565S.  

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September 
          26, 1986 and stated that the tenant's leases clearly state that the 
          air conditioner maintenance is not the responsibility of the 
          landlord, that the owner stopped servicing and installing air 
          conditioners in 1968, that the tenant was aware of this policy and 
          that, consequently, the complaint should be denied.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on November 10, 1986.  The 
          inspector reported that the inspection could not determine the 












          CA410378RO

          complaint because the outside temperature did not warrant the use 
          of an air conditioner.  The Administrator issued an order on 
          February 20, 1987 wherein the complaint was denied.

               On August 10, 1987 the Administrator ordered the proceeding 
          reopened and the order described above revoked because the 
          inspection had ben conducted on a day when the operating condition 
          of the air conditioner could not be determined.  The proceeding was 
          now assigned Docket No. BH410002RP.  The Administrator ordered an 
          inspection of the apartment.  The inspection was conducted on 
          August 11, 1987.  The inspector reported that the air conditioner 
          was defective and operates at an inadequate degree level.  
          Specifically, the inspector reported that, with the air conditioner 
          operating at the maximum level, the apartment temperature was 80 
          degrees when the outside temperature was 64 degrees.  

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          October 20, 1987 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to 
          one guideline adjustment based on the above report of the 
          inspector.  The Administrator noted that the air conditioner was 
          not operating within accepted industry standards.

               On appeal the owner states, in sum, that it attempted to 
          install a properly working air conditioner in the subject apartment 
          in August, 1987.  The owner further states that the tenant refused 
          to allow the owner to install the air conditioner and instead 
          demanded a brand new one.  The owner argues that it fulfilled any 
          responsibility it had and that the Administrator incorrectly 
          ordered a rent reduction.  The owner attached to the petition 
          copies of certified letters sent to the DHCR on August 31, 1987 and 
          November 3, 1987. These letters are offered in support of the 
          owner's contention that it made a good faith effort to correct the 
          problem with the air conditioner.  

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          and the order here under review should be revoked.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record of this proceeding 
          after it was ordered reopened and notes that the Administrator's 
          order of reopening is dated August 10, 1987.  The request for a 
          reinspection of the apartment was made on August 5, 1987 with the 
          actual inspection taking place on August 11, 1987.  It is clear 
          from these facts that the owner was not afforded sufficient notice 
          that the proceeding was being reopened and had no opportunity to 
          respond before the inspection took place.  This constitutes a 
          failure to afford due process.  Accordingly, the Commissioner is of 
          the opinion that the order here under review  must be revoked.  

               The Commissioner notes that the owner applied for rent 
          restoration and that the application was granted on February 2, 
          1989 (Docket No. CE410109OR).  The Division's records reveal that 






          CA410378RO

          the complaining tenant has vacated the apartment.  Therefore, any 
          arrears due and owing the owner by reason of this determination are 
          due and payable immediately.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it 
          is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, revoked.

          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