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.: CH110220R0      
                                                                 
          Hen Yam Lee Corp./
          Edwin J. Lee,                                      
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: CB110200OR           
            

                          PETITIONER             PREMISES: 36-07 Steinway St.
                                                           Apt. No. 2B
                                                           Long Island City
                                                           New York
          ----------------------------------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 August 8, 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 February 26, 1988 by the owner  
          filing an application to restore rent based on the alleged 
          restoration of services. A rent reduction order was issued on 
          January 27, 1988 under Docket Number BG110354S, based on a finding 
          of reduced services.

          On April 12, 1988, the Division transmitted a copy of the owner's 
          application to the tenant.

          In an answer filed on April 22, 1988, the tenant denied that 
          services were restored.

          Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on June 22, 1988 by a Division staff member who reported 
          that the windows in the kitchen, living room and bedroom have 
          defective locks, inoperative top and bottom sashes, and missing 
          chains; that the bathroom ceiling is cracked and uneven; that the 
          refrigerator door is not aligned and not properly repaired with 
          CH110220RO















          acceptable materials; that the apartment door has been repaired in 
          an unworkmanlike manner, i.e. the apartment door hole has been 
          repaired with aluminum plates and the apartment door frame is 
          rotted.

          On August 8, 1988, the Administrator denied the owner's application.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
          the windows are not broken and all operational; that the bathroom is 
          a textured stucco pattern; that the freezer door was broken by the 
          tenant and now replaced; and that the item about the defective 
          apartment entrance door was not in the tenant's original complaint.

          On October 14, 1988, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's 
          petition to the tenant.

          In an answer filed on November 3, 1988, the tenant asserted in 
          substance that repairs were not made.

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

          A search of Division records reveals that a Commissioner order under 
          Docket Number CB110188RO affirmed the correctness of the rent 
          reduction order (BG110354S), and ruled that the item about the 
          defective apartment entrance door was not in the tenant's original 
          complaint. However, this does not alter the substance of the 
          Administrator's determination in the rent restoration order, which 
          was based on an on-site report finding the continued existence of 
          numerous defective conditions within the apartment, items which were 
          in the tenant's initial complaint. The determination was in all 
          respects proper and is hereby sustained.

          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


                                           








          CH110220RO


                                           














    

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