CH 210077 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433



          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  CH 210077-RO
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                250 REALTY ASSOCIATES,       DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  BJ 211018-S 
                                                  PREMISES: 
                                                  2 Stoddard Place, 
                                   PETITIONER     Apt. 6-B, Brooklyn, 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 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 the petition. 

          On October 22, 1987, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by 
          filing a complaint of decrease  n  services.   Amongst  the  com-
          plained of conditions:

          1.   The ceiling in the dining area was  damaged  from  rain.
               When it rained  the  area  was  completely  wet  and  it
               leaked in several spots.
          2.   Two closets leaked when it rained.  These  closets  were
               next to the dining area.
          3.   The  roof  needed  to  be  repaired,  then  the  ceiling
               problem in the dining area.
          4.   The  living  room  ceiling  needed  to  be  scraped  and
               painted.  Paint chips were falling to the floor.
          5.   Leaks in the bedroom.    
          6.   Kitchen faucet could not be turned off completely.
          7.   Radiator in the bathroom leaked.


          On January 11, 1988, the  owner  interposed  an  answer,  stating
          that the roofer found the cause of  the  leak  and  was  able  to
          repair that area.  In addition, the owner  stated  that  arrange-
          ments were made with his painter to repair  and  touch  up  those
          areas in need of attention.  Attached to the owner's answer was a 
          signed work order by the tenant, wherein the tenant  stated  that
          the painter did not have any paint and therefore  was  unable  to
          paint the ceiling.  The owner went on to state that the  building






          CH 210077 RO
          superintendent was directed to  repair  the  kitchen  faucet  and
          bathroom radiator.

          On February 25, 1988, the owner supplemented his answer  stating,
          in pertinent part, that the roof was repaired and that the tenant 
          had informed him  that  everything  was  tight  and  not  leaking
          anymore.

          On April 18, 1988, the tenant was served with the owner's  answer
          and afforded twenty (20) days to respond.

          On May 9, 1988, the tenant responded, stating that the  roof  had
          been repaired, but unfortunately continued to leak.   The  tenant
          went on to state that the owner touched up the ceiling  prior  to
          effectuating repairs on the roof.  In addition, the tenant stated 
          that the kitchen faucet was still not repaired.

          The Rent Administrator  ordered  a  physical  inspection  of  the
          premises.  The inspection was conducted on  June  20,  1988,  and
          revealed the following:

          1.   There  is  evidence  of  ceiling  -  badly  waterstained
               plaster, large area - dining room.
          2.   The living room ceiling -  peeling  paint  and  plaster,
               large area.
          3.   Bedro m  ceiling  -  peeling  paint  and  plaster-water-
               stained plaster.

          On August 10, 1988,  the  Rent  Administrator  issued  the  order
          hereunder review based on the inspector's report.

          In the owner's petition, filed on  August  12,  1988,  the  owner
          states that the tenant has not cooperated with his contractors in 
          that he did not provide access to the premises for the purpose of 
          inspection until after taking the tenant to court  and  having  a
          judge order access dates.  In addition, the owner states that the 
          roof no longer leaks in that it was repaired during the month  of
          May 1988.




          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the  petition  should  be
          denied.

          The owner's claims regarding the denial of access and the  subse-
          quent court ordered access dates are unproven and raised for  the
          first time in the petition.  These are therefore beyond the scope 
          of review of administrative appeals which is limited to a  review
          of facts or evidence before the Rent Administrator.  

          The remainder of the  petition,  which  consist  of  the  owner's
          statement that the roof was repaired during May  1988,  does  not
          warrant modification or revocation of  the  Rent  Administrator's
          order.  The owner's statement does  not  address  the  conditions
          found within the apartment upon  physical  inspection,  whereupon
          the Rent Administrator issued the order here under appeal.

          Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Commissioner  finds






          CH 210077 RO
          the Rent Administrator's order was warranted.

          The Commissioner notes that on May 4, 1989, under Docket  No.  CK
          210144-OR, the owner's application for  a  restoration  of  rent,
          based on a restoration of services, was granted.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili 
          zation Law and Code, it is,

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                   JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                   Acting 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