CB110186RO



                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CB110186RO

                    
                    Hen Yam Lee Corp.

                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BG110200S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On February 26, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          February 1, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 36-07 Steinway Street, Long Island City, 
          N.Y., Apt.1-D, wherein the Administrator determined that a 
          reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of Apartment 1-D, based upon a reduction in services.   

          On July 9, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to paint the subject apartment and failed to furnish 
          various essential services, as required by law.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint on September 15, 1987, 
          alleging that the front door has been repaired many times and is in 
          operational condition and that all other requested repairs have 












          CB110186RO

          been addressed and subsequently corrected.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on November 23, 1987, revealed that:

               1.  Kitchen ceiling is cracked and about to fall.
               2.  Bedroom ceiling is discolored, blistered, and peeling     
                   paint and plaster.        
               3.  Livingroom walls are cracked.
               4.  Master bedroom ceiling and walls are cracked.
               5.  Walls in second bedroom are cracked.
               6.  Front apartment door has a defective lock, loose hinges,  
                   a rotted frame, and a defective peephole device.
               7.  Second bedroom window has sashes that do not operate, a   
                   defective lock, and a cracked  bottom pane.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the bedroom window is operational and is not a Housing Code 
          violation; that the apartment door problem was caused by the 
          tenant's installation of faulty locks which weaken the door's 
          structure and that the apartment was painted after the date of the 
          DHCR inspection.

          The petition was served on the tenant on March 28, 1988 and on 
          April 15, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that any repairs or painting that were completed were done in an 
          unworkmanlike manner.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in 
          effect prior to the most recent guideline adjustment, and the DHCR 
          shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that 
          the owner has failed to maintain required services.

          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

          A review of the record before the Rent Administrator clearly shows 
          that the owner failed to submit any credible evidence that the 
          deficiencies noted on the inspector's report were completed in a 
          workmanlike manner at the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any 
          time prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.

          The Commissioner notes that the PAR contains the owner's admission 
          that the apartment was painted after the date of the DHCR 
          inspection.
          Also, in the tenant's answer to the appeal, the tenant asserted 
          that any repairs or painting which were completed by the owner were 






          CB110186RO

          done in an unworkmanlike manner.

          The Commissioner finds that petitioner's assertions that some of 
          the services noted in the complaint were not Housing Code 
          violations or that the apartment door problem was caused by the 
          tenant are not material.

          A service deficiency may not be a Housing Code violation and may be 
          caused by the tenant and yet warrant a rent reduction according to 
          DHCR standards.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site physical inspection conducted on November 23, 1987 
          and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the 
          Administrator was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that 
          the owner had failed to maintain services.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 
          determination.

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          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 provisions of 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:

                                                      @컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴@
                                                      JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                      Deputy Commissioner





















          CB110186RO


                      


          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