CD520035RO

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




          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CD520035RO


                  WADSWORTH TERRACE CORP.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BJ520615S

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



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On April 22, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner, filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          March 23, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 46 Wadsworth Terrace, New York, N.Y., apt. 
          1-L, wherein the Administrator determined that the maximum legal 
          rent for the subject rent controlled apartment should be reduced by 
          $22.00 plus 10% of the maximum legal rent per month based upon a 
          diminution of services.  The Rent Administrator's order was based 
          upon an inspection held on December 11, 1987.  The Rent 
          Administrator also directed the restoration of all 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 the subject rent controlled apartment.

          The tenant filed a complaint on October 28, 1987 alleging that 
          repairs were required to the bathtub drain; the water damaged 
          ceilings in the kitchen, hall, and bathroom; the front door 
          peephole; the stove; the toilet, the mailbox and the infestation of 
          mice.















          CD520035RO



          In answer to the complaint, the owner asserted that all repairs 
          were done to the tenant's satisfaction.  The owner submitted a work 
          order dated November 20, 1987 by the tenant regarding repairs to 
          the front door, sink, washstand, bathtub drain, stove and wall 
          lamps.

          The inspection held on December 11, 1987, demonstrated that the 
          following services were not being maintained:

                              1.  Ceilings throughout are peeling paint and 
                              plaster.                                       
                                                                             
                              2.  Continuous water leakage from kitchen 
                              ceiling.                                       
                                                                             
                              3.  Apartment front door is difficult to open 
                              and close.                                     
                                                                             
                              4.  Roach and rodent infestation.

                              5.  Defective toilet flushometer.

                              6.  Defective mailbox.


          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that all necessary repairs 
          were completed in a workmanlike manner and that the tenant signed 
          a work order attesting to this fact.

          The petition was served on the tenant on May 23, 1988 and on May 
          25, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that 
          the apartment was in a state of disrepair; that very few repairs
          were completed by the owner and that due to illness and disability 
          she had mistakingly signed the owner's work order.

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

          For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed 
          to maintain services may result in an order of decrease in maximum 
          rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent 
          Administrator.












          CD520035RO

          The owner consistently alleged, both below and on appeal, that all 
          necessary repairs were corrected in a workmanlike manner and in 
          support of this contention it produced a work order signed by the 
          tenant.

          The tenant, however, contradicted the owner's assertions alleging 
          that the owner failed to make most repairs and that the work order 
          was signed in error.

          The owner's petition does not establish any basis for revoking the 
          Administrator's order, which determined that the owner was not 
          maintaining services based on a physical inspection confirming the 
          existence of defective conditions in the subject apartment for 
          which a rent reduction is warranted.  The work order on which the 
          owner relies was repudiated by the tenant and in any event does not 
          mention most of the items listed in the tenant's complaint and 
          confirmed by the inspection.

          If the conditions were corrected prior to the issuance of the order 
          under review, the owner offered no credible evidence to 
          substantiate the allegation before the Administrator.  If the 
          conditions were corrected after the issuance date, the 
          determination was proper.

          The owner may file a rent restoration application if the facts so 
          warrant.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City, 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, 
          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