STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
CE530303RO  (Refile of
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BJ520100OR


          The above-named owner refiled and perfected a timely petition for 
          administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on March 31, 1988 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 105 Pinehurst 
          Avenue, New York, New York, Apartment 54, wherein the Rent 
          Administrator determined the owner's initial application to restore 
          rent previously reduced per Docket No. BB520641S.

          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 the petition.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing a rent restoration 
          application, asserting that services had been restored to the 
          subject apartment.

          In an answer, the tenant disputed the owner's assertion that 
          repairs were completed.  The tenant acknowledged the owner's claim 
          that the scraped paint condition of the door was tenant induced, 
          asserting that the paint products used by the owner had adversely 
          affected her health.

          Thereafter, an inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on 
          January 5, 1988 by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal 
          (DHCR) inspector, who reported that the apartment door had been 
          replaced and that the tenant did not wish to have it painted.  The 
          inspector also reported paint and plaster defects throughout the 
          apartment.  In addition, the inspector indicated window defects for 
          six windows, in that bottom sashes prevented the top sash from 
          going down all the way.  The Administrator had reduced the tenant's 
          rent based on, among other items, rotted and loose window sashes.


          The Administrator directed rent restoration in part, in the amount 
          of $5.00 per month, for the apartment door, but otherwise denied 
          the owner's application.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner's note that 
          new windows had been installed in September 1987 and that the 
          tenant had the opportunity to have adjustments made, but that the 
          tenant never advised that further adjustments were necessary.  The 
          owner also indicates questions whether, in fact, a proper inspec- 
          tion was conducted, and that he had requested an inspection 
          conducted by the Inspector General's Office.  The petitioner was 
          silent as to the defective paint and plaster conditions.  The 
          tenant was served a copy of the owner's petition.

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

          Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the City Rent and Eviction Regula- 
          tions, the DHCR is authorized to decrease the legal rent if there 
          has been a decrease in essential service.

          The window defects described below concerned new window sashes, 
          rather than a continuation of defects in the underlying rent 
          reduction proceedings.  The owner's suspicion that a proper 
          inspection was not conducted is unfounded, as the record shows that 
          new windows were installed correcting the prior defects.  It is 
          noted, however, that a defective condition is not considered to be 
          fully corrected unless the repairs or replacement are adequate.  
          Herein, the inspection revealed that the owner had addressed the 
          underlying problem but that the replacement of windows failed to 
          work properly.  The owner's bare assertion that the tenant did not 
          advise that adjustments were required did not absolve the owner of 
          his primary responsibility to complete the work properly.

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


                                                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