CH220155RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: CH220155RO

                    M. Binioris,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BK220083S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 17, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          August 5, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 280 86th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., Apt. A-2,
          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 5, 1987, one rent controlled tenant filed a complaint 
          alleging that there was a diminution in services.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on December 23, 1987, 
          alleging that all service deficiencies enumerated in the complaint 
          have been corrected with the exception of the painting of the 
          apartment.  The owner further alleged that the apartment was not 
          painted because of a pre-existing arrangement with the tenant that 
          the tenant would be obligated to paint the apartment for a reduced 
          monthly rent.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on July 6, 1988, revealed that the 
          walls and ceilings throughout the apartment were water-stained and 












          CH220155RO

          had cracked plaster due to a leak.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          he was not obligated to paint the subject apartment since 1956, 
          because of a pre-existing agreement with the tenant that the tenant 
          would assume the obligation of painting his own apartment for a 
          corresponding reduced monthly rent.

          The petition was served on the tenant on October 4, 1988, and on 
          February 25, 1989, the tenant filed an answer to the petition 
          denying the existence of a valid painting assumption agreement.

          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 services may result in an order of decrease in maximum 
          rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent 
          Administrator.

          A review of the file reveals that whether the tenant agreed to do 
          his own painting or not, the case at bar deals with the owner's 
          failure to correct leak damage in the subject apartment and does 
          not deal with a painting issue.

          The inspection held on July 6, 1988, supported the tenant's 
          contention that the owner failed to correct the cracked plaster and 
          water staining in a workmanlike manner.

          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.

          The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based the 
          determination on the entire record, including the results of the 
          on-site physical inspection conducted on July 6, 1988, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          the Administrator was authorized to reduce the rent upon 
          determining that the owner had failed to maintain services.

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

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's application for rent 
          restoration was granted on August 1, 1989, under Docket No. 
          DB220069OR.







          CH220155RO

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Eviction 
          Regulations for New York, it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's 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