CF220061R0        


                                    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.:             
                                                  CF220061RO                 
                  NEPTUNE ASSOCIATES,               
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                   PETITIONER     DOCKET NO.:
          ----------------------------------x     BK220210S              


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On June 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti- 
          tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 25, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda- 
          tion known as 8320 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment C-44, 
          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 November 25, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that 
          the owner was not maintaining services.  More specifically, the 
          tenant alleged that there were water leaks in the living room and 
          bedroom.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint on January 6, 1988, 
          alleging that the roof was checked; that all necessary repair 
          materials had been purchased and that the ceiling will be repaired.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on January 6, 1988, revealed leaks and 
          water damage on the living room, bedroom and foyer walls and 
          ceilings.  A reinspection held on April 6, 1988, revealed that some 
          patch-work was done on the roof above the tenant's apartment but 
          that there was still water damage on the living room and bedroom 
          walls and ceilings.












          CF220061R0        





          On appeal the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the subject apartment was painted in May, 1988.

          The petition was served on the tenant on July 28, 1988.

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

          For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed 
          to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease 
          in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the 
          Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because 
          of the decrease in services.

          Both the inspection of January 6,1988 and the reinspection of April 
          6, 1988, revealed that the owner failed to fully correct the water 
          leak or its resultant damage.

          A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that 
          the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted 
          on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at 
          the time of the DHCR's inspections or at any time prior to the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspections conducted on January 6, 1988 and April 
          6, 1988, and that pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations a rent reduction reflecting the reduced rental 
          value of the accommodation because of the decreased services was 
          warranted.

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

          The Commissioner notes that on May 22,1991, the owner's application 
          for a restoration of rent was denied by the Rent Administrator, 
          under Docket No. EK220129OR based upon an inspection of the 
          premises on February 8, 1991 which disclosed that the water damage 
          and peeling paint throughout the subject apartment had not be 
          corrected.



          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately reapply for 






                    




          a rent restoration.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic- 
          tion Regulations for New York, it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's 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