CE110100RT                                 
                                  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.:              
CE110100RT
                      RUTH FRANK,                    
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     BK120189OR
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
                                          

          On May 17, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a peti- 
          tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 
          20, 1988, concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment 
          3M-D, 117-01 Park Lane South, Kew Gardens, New York, wherein the 
          Administrator granted in part the owner's rent restoration 
          application.

          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 administrative appeal.

          The record reveals that the owner commenced this proceeding on 
          November 25, 1987, by filing an application to restore rent that 
          had been reduced in Docket No. BD120018S.  The rent had been 
          reduced by $17.50 plus 10% of the maximum legal rent for a missing 
          shower door latch ($2.00), cracked tiles on the bathroom floor  
          ($2.00), peeling paint and plaster on walls and ceilings throughout 
          the apartment (10%), and defective sills and frames on nine windows 
          ($13.50).  The owner stated in the application that the shower door 
          latch was repaired; the plastering was done, and work on the 
          windows was begun but the tenant cancelled and advised that she 
          would call for an appointment when ready.

          The application was sent to the tenant on January 5, 1988.  The 
          tenant responded that the work done has been so bad that it cannot 
          be considered to have corrected the violations and had actually 













          CE110100RT                                 


          downgraded the condition of the apartment.  Specifically the tenant 
          asserted that her complaint concerned the fact that the shower door 
          opens on the wrong side requiring one to get in the shower in order 
          to turn the water on, the small bathroom door does not lock, no 
          scraping or plastering of the walls was done, work was begun on the 
          windows but the workmanship was poor and the tenant was not con- 
          tacted about completion, and repair of the bathroom tile floor is 
          worse than the original condition.

          The apartment was physically inspected by a Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) employee on March 16, 1988.  The inspector 
          reported that a shower door latch had been installed, the bathroom 
          floor tiles were missing grout, the ceilings and walls in the 
          master bedroom and hallway had peeling paint and plaster, the 
          wallpaper in the main bathroom was uneven and the paper showed an 
          uneven surface underneath, the second bedroom wall was cracked, the 
          living room walls had peeling paint and plaster, and the kitchen 
          and second bedroom windows had rough and discolored sills and the 
          moldings were sanded but not painted.

          Based on this inspection, the Rent Administrator ordered the 
          maximum legal rent for the rent controlled apartment restored by 
          $11.00 per month for installation of the shower door latch and 
          repair of six windows.  The owner was advised to refile for the 
          remaining 10% and $6.50 when repairs are completed to the bathroom 
          floor tiles, the 
          peeling paint and plaster throughout the apartment, and the windows 
          that have rough and discolored sills and moldings.

          In the petition for administrative review, the tenant asserts that 
          the original complaint stated that the small bathroom door does not 
          have a lock, and that some windows and sills were poorly sanded and 
          left unfinished.  The tenant added that the tile floor that was 
          installed has various defects besides missing grout.

          The petition was served on the owner on July 5, 1988.

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

          The tenant's petition is in the nature of a challenge to the 
          validity of the rent reduction order and its purported omission of 
          certain items that were listed in the complaint.  Such objections 
          are not appropriate matters for consideration in this proceeding in 
          which the only issue involved is whether the services listed in the 
          rent reduction order have been restored.  The record, including the 
          physical inspection, adequately supports the Administrator's 
          determination that some repairs were completed and others were not, 
          warranting a partial rent restoration.

          Objections to the rent reduction order can be considered only in a 






          CE110100RT                                 

          timely appeal of that order and the Division's records reveal that 
          no such appeal was filed by the tenant.

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