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.: CC110374R0 
                                                                      

          Tiffox Realty Corp.,                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: BB110033S      
                                                     

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 3G
                                                             11-25 46th Rd.
                                                             Queens, NY
          -----------------------------------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 February 5, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 January 30, 1987 by a tenant filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain services 
          in the subject apartment.

          In an answer filed on March 17, 1987, the owner denied the 
          allegations as set forth in the complaint and otherwise asserted 
          that repairs had only been done in part because the tenant was 
          constantly out of town and access to the apartment was not given. 
          The owner submitted in relevant part a copy of a February 10, 1987 
          letter from a worker who stated that he did extensive plastering and 
          painting in one room on February 4, 5 and 6 when the tenant asked 
          him to stop work until further notice. The owner submitted no 
          evidence of a notice requesting access by the tenant for scheduled 
          repairs after February 6, 1987, by regular mail and certified mail 
          with return receipt.
          CC110374RO














          Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on July 30, 1987 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the 
          existence of the complained-of conditions.

          Based on the inspection, the Administrator determined that the 
          ceiling in the bathroom leaks and has a hole (hazardous); that the 
          bathtub is peeling badly; that the tiles in the bathroom are broken 
          and missing; that the cut-off valve is broken; that there are holes 
          in the bathroom floor; that the ceiling and walls in the bedroom are 
          leaking; that the ceiling in the kitchen is discolored and peeling 
          paint and plaster; and that the walls and ceilings are peeling paint 
          and plaster in the kitchen, hallway and living room. The 
          Administrator directed the restoration of services and ordered a 
          reduction of the stabilized rent.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner does not 
          dispute the inspection results and otherwise asserted that the leak 
          in the bath ceiling had been repaired. The owner reiterates as in 
          its answer to the complaint in the proceeding before the 
          Administrator that due perhaps to the tenant's job which required 
          leaving town, the tenant prevented the completion of work.

          In answer,  the tenant denied refusing access, asserting that he 
          allowed workmen to his aparment either through his sublessee or by 
          leaving the keys to the building handyman; and that he generally had 
          regular working hours and usually was at the apartment. The tenant 
          explained that the real cause of these defective conditions for 
          years since the inception of his lease is chronic leaking in the 
          bathroom walls and ceiling; that the three days' work in February 
          1987 was slow, patch-up, ineffective and unworkmanlike; that the 
          owner had never addressed the real leak until after the issuance of 
          the Administrator's order; and that the professional worker sent by 
          the owner subsequent to the issuance of the order did the repairs in 
          less than three days.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be denied.

          The owner failed to establish in the proceeding below or in this 
          petition that the tenant refused access for the completion of 
          repairs on February 6, 1987. The owner submitted no evidence of a 
          notice requesting the tenant to provide access for scheduled repairs 
          after February 6, 1987, by regular mail and certified mail with 
          return receipt. Rather, the record supports the contention that 
          repairs on February 4, 5, and 6 1987 may have ben done in an 
          unworkmanlike manner.

          Inasmuch as the owner does not dispute the inspection's findings, 
          which were the basis of the Administrator's determination, the order 
          appealed from was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.

          CC110374RO

          The owner's rent restoration application (CG110033OR) was denied on 




          January 20, 1989.

          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 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