Doc.#CG610180RO
                                  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.: CG610180RO

                                              :     
             H & R Executive Towers                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
             c/o College Management,          :     DOCKET NO.: BG610484S


                              PETITIONER      :
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 8, 1988, the above-name petitioner-owner timely refiled a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 
          9, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 1020 Grand Concourse, Bronx, N.Y., Apt. #8- 
          J, wherein the Administrator determined that the 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 of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

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

          On July 10, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging, in 
          pertinent part, that the owner failed to provide scraping and 
          painting services in the living room and bathroom and that the 
          central air conditioning is inoperable.

          The record contains an answer to complaint dated April 11, 1988, 
          alleging that the air-conditioner has been corrected.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on December 8, 1987, revealed that the 
          living room ceiling and walls were peeling paint and plaster.  The 
          inspector reported that the tenant was withdrawing the air 
          conditioner complaint.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          on October 30, 1987, the living room and bathroom ceilings and 
          walls were scraped and painted and that the tenant and painter 
          signed a work-order attesting to this fact.  The owner further 
          alleged that the tenant filed multiple service complaints for the 
          same service items.

          The tenant did not file an answer to the petition.









          Doc.#CG610180RO


          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 a 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, painting and maintenance.

          The record shows that a Notice and Transmittal of Tenants' 
          complaint was mailed to the owner on August 14, 1987, at the 
          owner's correct address but that the owner failed to submit an 
          answer below which addressed the tenant's claim that scraping and 
          painting services were not being provided in livingroom and 
          bathroom.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner failed to 
          adequately answer the tenants' complaint and that the inspection 
          confirmed the existence of those conditions specified in the 
          tenants' complaint.

          Nearly nine months had elapsed from the time a copy of the tenants' 
          complaint was mailed to the owner to the time the Rent 
          Administrator's order was issued on May 9, 1988.

          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 inspection or at any time prior to the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order.  In fact, the owner alleged 
          that the scraping and painting services in the living room and 
          bathroom were corrected on October 30, 1987, but the record shows 
          that the DHCR inspection was held on December 8, 1987, after the 
          date the owner claims repairs were made.

          The commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim that duplicate service complaints were filed by the tenant 
          and rejects this argument.

          The other proceeding referred to by the petitioner which was filed 
          under Docket Number AI610340S, involved entirely different service 
          conditions and was not germane to the present proceeding.

          The Commissioner notes that the verso of the appealed order clearly 
          states that:


                    Notice to Owner/Landlord and Tenant:

                    For a rent controlled apartment where there is 




          Doc.#CG610180RO

                    already an Order Reducing Maximum Rent in 
                    effect for a decrease service specifically 
                    contained herein, or for a rent stabilized 
                    apartment where such an Order is already in 
                    effect for any type of decreased service, no 
                    further rent reduction is authorized by this 
                    Order.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspection conducted on December 8, 1987, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was 
          mandated to issue the order appealed herein upon determining that 
          the owner had failed to maintain services, but that the order did 
          not result in a second rent reduction if one was already in effect.

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

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

          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 provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is 

          ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the 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