CF210246RO 
                                  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.: CF210246RO
                                                  
          A. RICHARD PARKOFF                      RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                                  NO.: CC210288S 
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
          On June 27, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued June 2, 1988 concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as Apt. 3P, 345 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn, 
          NY, wherein the Administrator found that certain services were not 
          being provided or maintained, directed restoration of such 
          services, and reduced the maximum legal rent by $19.50 per month.
                                      
          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has 
          carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on 
          appeal.

          A review of the record reveals that on March 1, 1988, the tenant 
          filed a complaint in which she alleged that the owner had failed to 
          make certain repairs in her apartment.

          In an answer to the complaint dated April 21, 1988, the owner 
          stated that it is ready, willing and able to comply, that work 
          orders have been prepared, and that upon completion of the work, 
          copies of the work orders signed by the tenant will be submitted.  
                 
          An inspection by DHCR on April 25, 1988 revealed that the repairs 
          had not been made.  Based on the results of this inspection, the 
          Rent Administrator reduced the maximum legal rent by $9.00 for 
          peeling paint and plaster and waterstains on the bathroom, kitchen 
          and master bedroom ceilings; $2.00 defective and exposed wiring on 
          the ceiling light in the second bedroom; $2.00 for the defective 
          bathroom light switch and fixture; $2.00 for loose and missing 
          bathroom floor tiles; $1.50 for a broken glass pane in the bathroom 
          window; and $3.00 for a broken bathroom toilet seat.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that 
          this is a second order to reduce rent resulting in a double 












          CF210246RO 

          decrease.

          In answer to the petition, the tenant urges that the petition be 
          denied because the repairs have not been done.

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

          The Division's records reveal that an order was issued on October 
          28, 1986 under Docket No. AF220608S ordering the rent for the 
          subject apartment reduced to the level in effect prior to the last 
          rent guideline increase because the "bathroom ceiling has fallen 
          down due to leaks.  There is peeling paint and plaster."  No appeal 
          of this order was taken by either party.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that since the aforementioned 
          order erroneously reduced the rent for this rent controlled 
          apartment by a guideline, such a rent reduction is meaningless and 
          had no effect.  The order is therefore a nullity in terms of 
          reducing the rent that cannot serve to bar a subsequent rent 
          reduction order which properly states a dollar amount from taking 
          effect.  Moreover, the two orders do not state identical conditions 
          requiring repair and, in fact, are duplicative only with regard to 
          the bathroom ceiling.  

          The order appealed herein was properly based on a physical 
          inspection which revealed that the necessary repairs had not been 
          completed and a rent reduction was properly ordered by the Rent 
          Administrator.

          The Divison's records reveal the owner's rent restoration 
          application was granted on May 2, 1991 (Docket No. EI210153OR).
           
          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 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