STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
CE530303RO (Refile of
YALE PINEHURST ASSOCIATES,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
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
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