CH610174RO
                                  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.:
                                                       CH610174RO
               Milburn Management Corp.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CF610121S
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On August 30, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          August 12, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 2641 Marion Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., Apt. 4-C, 
          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 June 3, 1988, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain services.  More specifically, the tenant 
          claimed that there is a ceiling leak in the bathroom and that the 
          pipe under the sink is dripping.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that most of 
          the leakage in the subject apartment is caused by the irresponsible 
          behavior of the tenants living in apartment 5-C, but that all 
          repairs have been properly scheduled.



          A DHCR inspection conducted on July 6, 1988 revealed that the 
          bathroom drain is leaking; that there is peeling paint and plaster 












          CH610174RO

          in the master bedroom, living room and dining room; that the foyer, 
          kitchen and northern bedroom walls have water-stains and that the 
          leaks are coming from the apartment above the subject apartment.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          it had no notice of the bathroom leak until receipt of the appealed 
          order, in August 12, 1988, and that it has repeatedly repaired 
          apartment 5-C, but the problem keeps reoccurring.  The owner 
          further alleged that the plastering and painting complaint was 
          first made to its office in January, 1987.

          The petition was served on the tenant on October 6, 1988.

          On August 24, 1988, the tenant filed an answer alleging that the 
          owner failed to respond to her repeated repair and painting 
          requests which were made in person to the owner and when they were 
          eventually addressed, the work was done in an unworkmanlike manner.

          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 and maintenance.

          The Commissioner has considered and rejects the petitioner's claim 
          that it had no notice of the bathroom drain-pipe leak.

          A review of the complaint shows that the bathroom drain-pipe leak 
          was specified with sufficient particularity and that the petitioner 
          had adequate notice from the complaint of this condition.

          A copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to the owner on June 
          14, 1988 and the Rent Administrator's order was issued on August 
          12, 1988.

          The Commissioner also finds that the owner's statements on appeal 
          constitute an admission that the ceiling leak was not properly 
          addressed and that the problem was caused by overflow conditions 
          emanating from apartment 5-C.  Paragraph two (2) of the appeal 
          states that:
               We have constantly repaired the above apartment, 5C, 
               which is flooding Ms. Hallman's apartment.  See enclosed  
               bills.  This tenant in 5C has been uncooperative with 
               repairs and due to the flooding, it has been impossible 






          CH610174RO

               to repair the ceilings in Ms. Hallman's apartment.  
               Impossible because the areas needing repairs never dry 
               out sufficient enough to be repaired.  Only once, at the 
               end of January, 1988, was the plastering done.  This was 
               by the superintendent.  Only two days later was the 
               apartment flooded again by the above apartment.

          The inspector's report clearly showed that even if the owner 
          attempted to correct the conditions prior to the issuance of the 
          Rent Administrator's order, it had failed to do so in a workmanlike 
          manner.

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

          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 July 6, 1988, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was 
          authorized 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 and the rent reduction remains in effect until an 
          application for rent restoration is filed and granted.

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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          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