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.: CE110218R0 
                                                                      
          J.H. Winfrey/
          Visutton Management Corp.,              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: BJ110348S      
                                                     

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 14K
                                                             99-40 63rd. Rd.
                                                             Rego Park, 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 April 28, 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 October 5, 1987 by a tenant filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various  
          services in the subject apartment.

          On November 30, 1987, a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the 
          owner with notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an 
          answer.

          By letter received on December 18, 1987, the owner requested an 
          extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988. In its letter, the 
          owner states that "if we do not hear from you we must assume it has 
          been accepted."

          On January 7, 1988, DHCR requested the owner for more specific 
          information including, but not limited to, "schedules for commencing 
          and completing the work." 

          The owner failed to respond to DHCR's request.

          CE110218RO

















          On February 17, 1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was 
          conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of 
          defective conditions.

          By order dated April 28, 1988, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the 
          stabilized rent based on the inspection finding that the walls and 
          ceiling of the living room, the master bedroom and the 2nd. bedroom 
          are moldy and have peeling paint and plaster.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
          by a letter dated March 17, 1988, it requested DHCR for further 
          extension until April 30, 1988, stating that "if we do not hear from 
          you to the contrary we will assume such extension has been granted"; 
          and that it was not notified by DHCR that this request was denied.  
           
          DHCR mailed the tenant a copy of the owner's petition.

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

          The Administrator's determination was properly based on a timely 
          inspection which found defective conditions in the subject 
          apartment, warranting a rent reduction.

          Though a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the owner with 
          notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an answer, the 
          owner requested an extension to do so four (4) months later, stating 
          that "if we do not hear from you to the contrary we will assume such 
          extension has been granted". DHCR neither denied nor granted the 
          request, but answered the owner's letter with an inquiry for some 
          evidence of repairs. The owner failed to respond to this inquiry. 
          The Commissioner notes that the Division was not required to respond 
          in writing to this extension request and in the absence of a clear, 
          written grant, the owner should not assume that such a request would 
          be granted.  
            
          The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application 
          (DJ110014OR) was granted on May 1, 1990.








          CE110218RO









          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