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.: CC110238RO
DOCKET NO.: BG110485S
Hen Yam Lee Corp./Edwin J. Lee,
PREMISES: 36-07 Steinway St.,
Apt. # 3C
Long Island City, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 3, 1988
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 this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on July 10, 1987 by a rent-
stabilized tenant filing a complaint, asserting that the window is
defective; that the walls in the children's bedroom are defective;
that water pours through the living room ceiling; that the kitchen
light is defective; that the buzzer does not work; and that the
apartment needs painting. The tenant submitted photos of these
On August 20, 1987, the Division transmitted the tenant's
complaint to the owner.
In answer, the owner stated that all repairs would be
completed on September 8, 1987.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on December 10, 1987 by a Division staff member who
confirmed that the windows throughout the apartment have defective
frames, sashes and locks; that the ceilings and walls in the
bedroom and living room are peeling paint and plaster and need to
be painted; and that the ceiling in the living room is leaking.
The Administrator directed the restoration of services and
ordered the reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends
in substance that the Administrator's orders (this order BG110485S
and another order BF110677S) are based on the same complaints; that
it has never received the complaints; and that upon receipt of the
Administrator's order, it made all necessary repairs.
On June 8, 1988, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's
petition to the tenant.
In an answer filed on July 1, 1988, the tenant stated that the
owner had not made repairs in a workmanlike manner; that the
ceiling is falling; and that the apartment paint is peeling.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
Contrary to the owner's allegation, the record clearly shows
that the owner did receive the tenant's complaint in the proceeding
below and filed an answer stating that all repairs will be
completed on September 8, 1987. The Administrator's order was
based upon a December 10, 1987 staff inspector's report which found
defective conditions within the apartment as alleged in the
tenant's complaint. Thus, the determination was in all respects
proper and is hereby sustained.
The owner's bare allegations that repairs were made subsequent
to the issuance of the Administrator's order does not disturb the
determination based on on-site inspection confirming the continued
existence of decreased services.
A search of the Division's records reveals that the alleged
duplicate tenant's complaint (BF110677S) was filed on a different
date (June 18, 1987) and inspected at a different time with a
different finding of hazardous exposed electrical wires. The owner
is aware of these other proceedings because it has filed an
administrative appeal (CB110289RO) against this order (BF110677S),
and also filed various applications for rent restoration which had
been denied. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds the owner's
allegation of duplication without merit.
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 (BG110485S) be, and the
same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta