STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:             
                  NEPTUNE ASSOCIATES,               
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                   PETITIONER     DOCKET NO.:
          ----------------------------------x     BI210225S              


          On June 16, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti- 
          tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 16, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda- 
          tion known as 8320 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment B-24, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent was 
          warranted based upon a reduction in services. 

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          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 administrative appeal.        

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On September 2, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that 
          the owner was not maintaining services.  More specifically, the 
          tenant alleged that the bathroom ceiling was in a state of 
          disrepair; that the doorbell is inoperative and that the apartment 
          was last painted nine years ago.

          In an answer to the complaint the owner submitted a copy of a 
          statement dated November 12, 1987, and purportedly signed by the 
          tenant sating that all necessary repairs were completed to the 
          tenant's satisfaction.  The Division of Housing and Community 
          Renewal (DHCR) requested that the tenant verify his statement, but 
          the tenant failed to do so.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on March 14, 1988, revealed that the 
          ceiling and walls throughout the apartment are peeling paint and 
          are plaster-leak damaged.

          On appeal the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that it 
          tried on numerous occasions to get a painter to paint the apartment 
          but that the painters refused to enter the premises because of an 
          offensive odor which emanates from the apartment.

          The petition was served on the tenant on July 30, 1988.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community renewal 
          (DHCR) for reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in 
          effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR 
          shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that 
          the owner has failed to maintain required services.

          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

          A review of the record before the Administrator shows that although 
          the owner submitted a statement purportedly signed by the tenant 
          acknowledging that repairs were completed by the owner, a subse- 
          quent DHCR inspection determined that the walls throughout the 
          apartment were in a state of disrepair.

          The Commissioner notes that the petitioner's PAR stated that 
          painting services were not rendered because of the painters' 
          refusal to enter the apartment.  This was not raised below and in 
          fact, corroborates the results of the inspection.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 

          The Commissioner further finds that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site physical inspection conducted on March 14, 1988 and 


          that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator 
          was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to maintain services.

          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.

          Upon restoration of services the owner may separately apply for a 
          rent restoration.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

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


                                                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