CE210055RO
                                  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.:  CE210055RO
                                                  
          BENJAMIN HAIMOWITZ                      RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BH210719S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On May 13, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          timely Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the 
          Rent Administrator issued April 11, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 6P located at 315 Ocean Parkway, 
          Brooklyn, N.Y.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement of 
          Complaint of Decrease in Services alleging that the owner had 
          failed to maintain required services.

               In an answer, the owner stated that some repairs were done 
          after access was finally obtained and the remaining work would be 
          completed when the tenant again allows access.  The owner submitted 
          copies of two letters sent to the tenant by certified mail, one 
          telling her to call to make an appointment for repairs and a second 
          describing repairs done on September 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1987 but 
          not completed because the tenant did not move her things out of the 
          way for the painter on September 28 and 29, 1987.  The owner also 
          stated that the refrigerator is in good working order.
           
               The tenant replied that only the door saddle was repaired and 
          that she made her apartment available for four days for painting 
          which should have been enough time.  She also reiterated that the 
          refrigerator and other conditions cited in the complaint are still 
          defective.

               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on February 25, 1988 and 
          revealed the following:












          CE210055RO

                    1.   Peeling paint and plaster throughout the apartment  
                         except for the kitchen and bedroom,

                    2.   Loose kitchen floor tiles,

                    3.   Broken tiles around edge of bathtub,

                    4.   Large holes over the kitchen sink and cupboard and 
                         beneath the sink,

                    5.   Plugged refrigerator drain,

                    6.   Unworkmanlike repairs made to the broken bathroom 
                         tiles.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on April 
          11, 1988 and ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent. 

               On appeal the owner asserts that all repairs were done and the 
          entire apartment was redecorated except for the kitchen and 
          bathroom and the owner had requested an appointment to finish the 
          painting by letter dated November 25, 1987 and sent to the tenant 
          by certified mail.  The owner also states that all other repairs 
          have been done and that the refrigerator is not defective.  The 
          petition was served on the tenant on June 28, 1988.

               In an answer filed on July 17, 1988, the tenant asserts that 
          she never received the mentioned letter.  She denied that any 
          repairs were done and she attached correspondence exchanged between 
          herself and the owner in 1987 regarding the four days in September, 
          1987 when access for repairs was scheduled which the tenant 
          contends should have been enough time to complete all repairs.

               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               The petition does not establish any basis for modifying or 
          revoking the Administrator's order which determined that the owner 
          was not maintaining required services based on a staff inspection 
          for which the rent reduction is warranted.

               The owner has not established that access was refused and, in 
          fact, the record reveals that access was granted for four days in 
          September, 1987 for painting.  There is no evidence in the record 
          that any other repairs were even attempted.  The purported attempt 
          to complete the painting in November, 1987 was not submitted to the 
          Administrator and is beyond the scope of review of this 
          administrative appeal.  It is also denied by the tenant and makes 
          no reference to the other conditions cited in the complaint and 
          confirmed by the inspector.








          CE210055RO

               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.

               The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application 
          when all repairs are completed.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 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