CJ110106RO                                 
                                  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.:              
CJ110106RO
                 KANSAS LEASING CORP.,           
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BI110734S 
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for admin- 
          istrative review (PAR) of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 134-20 87th Avenue, Apartment 6-D, 
          Kew Gardens, New York.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petition.             

          The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on 
          September 8, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          certain services in the subject apartment, including peeling paint 
          and plaster in two bedrooms and water seepage from the windows in 
          the bedrooms.   Notice of the complaint was sent to the owner on 
          December 16, 1987.

          In an answer dated December 31, 1987, the owner stated that she had 
          not received a copy of the complaint from either the tenant or 
          DHCR.  The complaint and answer forms were sent to the owner again 
          on March 8, 1988.  

          Thereafter, inspections of the subject apartment were conducted on 
          April 27, 1988 and August 3, 1988, by a Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector who confirmed the existence of 
          the following defective conditions:  

               1.   Master bedroom and second bedroom ceiling and 
                    walls have peeling paint and plaster.
          2.   Windows in both bedrooms show evidence of 
                    water seepage.












          CJ110106RO                                 



          The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and 
          further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent.

          In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in 
          substance, that the Administrator did not consider the owner's 
          answer dated August 5, 1988, that the defects would be corrected on 
          September 16, 1988, a date that the tenant chose to give access and 
          therefore, the inspection should not have been conducted until 
          after the work was completed.  

          The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on December 2, 
          1988.

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

          The Administrator's order was properly based on the on site 
          inspections on April 27, 1988 and August 8, 1988 which confirmed 
          that the master bedroom and second bedroom had peeling paint and 
          plaster and that the windows in those bedrooms showed evidence of 
          water seepage.  Accordingly, the determination was in all respects 
          proper and is hereby sustained.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the 
          tenant, where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain 
          required services.  The owner's 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 physical inspection confirming the existence of 
          defective conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent 
          reduction is warranted.

          Since the tenant's complaint was mailed to the owner on March 8, 
          1988, and an inspection which took place five months later on 
          August 8, 1988, still revealed the defective condition, it is the 
          Commissioner's opinion that the owner had ample time to repair the 
          defective item in the complaint.

          The scope of review in administrative appeals is limited to a 
          review of facts or evidence that were before the Administrator.  
          Although the owner's response of August 5, 1988, was received by 
          the Division on August 10, 1988, it was not in the record that was 
          before the Administrator when the order was issued.  The Commis- 
          sioner finds, however, that since this response was not submitted 











          CJ110106RO                                 

          until five months after the owner was served with the complaint, 
          the contents of that response need not be considered.

          The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration 
          application was granted on May 26, 1989 (Docket No. CJ110128OR).

          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.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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