STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CI510037RO    
          B.B. Management Corp.                   RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BI410273S 

          On September 15, 1988 the named petitioner-owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review of an order issued on August 17, 1988, by 
          the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known 
          as Apt. 4L, 276-278 Sherman Avenue, New York, NY wherein the Rent 
          Administrator found that the owner was not maintaining required 
          services, directed restoration of such services, and ordered a rent 

          The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully considered 
          that portion relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.
          A review of the record reveals that on September 17, 1987
          the tenant filed a statement of complaint of decrease in services 
          in which she alleged that there were numerous conditions throughout 
          her apartment that required repairs.  
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated that work crews had 
gone to the tenant's apartment and completed some repairs but were 
ordered by the tenant to stop work and have not been allowed access 

The tenant replied that workers did come to her apartment and did 
do some repairs but declared that they were finished and haven't 
been heard from since.  The tenant denied ever refusing access.

A physical inspection was scheduled for March 25, 1988 at which the 
owner, the tenant and the owner's repair person(s) were directed to 
appear.  The inspector reported that a plumber, plaster and tile 
man, building agent, and carpenter were in the process of doing 
repairs.  A second inspection on notice to both the owner and the 
tenant was scheduled for 1 p.m. June 30, 1988.  The inspector's 
report indicates the date of inspection as June 30, 1988 with a 
"Final Visit" on July 19, 1988.  The inspector stated that the 


          refrigerator had several defects, the kitchen ceiling had broken 
          and cracked plaster, the two bedroom had loose floor boards, the 
          toilet would not flush because of inadequate water pressure, the 
          bathroom tiles needed replacing and repair, the bathroom wall tiles 
          needed replastering, the walls and ceilings throughout the 
          apartment had peeling paint and plaster, and the bedroom door was 

          Based on this report, the Rent Administrator issued the order 
          appealed herein.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts again 
          that the owner had attempted to complete repairs but the tenant 
          ordered the workers to leave the apartment, that the owner had work 
          crews at the apartment on June 30, 1988 from 1 p.m. until 2:30 but 
          the inspector did not appear, and that the rent reduction order is 
          based on an inspection of which the owner had no notice. The owner 
          also claims that the order cites conditions that were not in the 
          original complaint.

          In answer to the petition, the tenant states that did the owner and 
          his workers did appear for the first inspection on March 25, 1988 
          but left at 10:15 a.m. when the inspector left.  The tenant claims 
          that the landlord failed to appear at the second inspection on June 
          30, 1988 and the inspector left at 4:30 p.m.  The tenant included 
          with her answer a statement by a representative from the Northern 
          Manhattan Corporation who has been helping her to get the repairs 
          done and who was present at the inspection.  The representative 
          states that the landlord failed to appear at the June 30, 1988 
          inspection, that the landlord has repeatedly been informed of the 
          repairs that are needed, and that the Administrator's order should 
          not be reversed or cancelled just because the owner wasn't notified 
          of an inspection.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR to 
          order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, where 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 owner's petition does not establish 
          any basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which 
          found, based on the inspector's report, that required repairs had 
          not be done. 

          The owner did not submit any evidence to the Administrator to 
          substantiate the allegation that the tenant failed to provide

          access at any time.  The tenant denies the assertion, pointing out 
          that it is in her interest to admit the owner's work crews to 
          repair the items cited in her complaint.  The record is devoid of 
          appointment letters sent to the tenant by regular and certified 
          mail setting up specific dates for work to be done.  In the absence 
          of such evidence, the owner is not entitled to advance notice of 

          when the Division's inspection is to take place.  Service of the 
          complaint on the owner afforded adequate notice of the conditions 
          requiring repair and the length of time the proceeding was pending 
          allowed sufficient opportunity to complete the repairs or establish 
          that access was not being provided.  

          Although it is unclear from the inspector's report regarding the 
          June 30, 1988 visit whether the inspector appeared at the scheduled 
          time and whether the owner was present or why another "final visit" 
          took place, the Commissioner is of the opinion that this ambiguity 
          is immaterial because notice to the owner of the inspection was not 

          Moreover, a review of the complaint reveals that every item cited 
          in the Administrator's order was listed in the tenant's complaint.  
          Therefore, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          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. 


                                             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