CL 210064-RO
                                  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     S.J.R. NO.: 5953
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:   
                                                       CL 210064-RO
                 
              WALLMAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY,              RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S 
                                                       DOCKET NO.: 
                                                       BL 210373-S
                                   PETITIONER 
           ----------------------------------x 

                                                            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW   


          On December 15, 1988, the above-referenced owner filed a Petition 
          for Administrative Review concerning an order issued on  November
          17, 1988, by the Rent Administrator in the Jamaica office of  the
          above-referenced Division, in which order the  Administrator  had
          reduced the rent paid by the occupant of t e  housing  accommoda-
          tion known as Apartment 2-B at 1801 Avenue N, Brooklyn, New York,
          due to defects in required services.

          The owner later filed a petition under Article 78  of  the  Civil
          Practice Law and Rules, requesting that the  "deemed  denial"  of
          its administrative appeal be annulled.  Pursua t  to  that  peti-
          tion an order was issued by Hon.  H.A.  Posner,  Justice  of  the
          Supreme Court, remitting the  proceeding  to  this  Division  for
          expeditious determination of the aforementioned appeal.  

          This proceeding originated on December 31, 1987, when the  tenant
          of the aforementioned apartment filed a Complaint of Decrease  in
          Services with the Division, stating in pertinent  part  that  the
          bathtub was "a health hazard" and that the frames and  sashes  of
          the windows and screens were defective.  The owner  denied  those
          allegations.  An inspection was therefore held on  September  27,
          1988, and the ensuing report indicated that enamel in the tub was 
          faded and that the windows and screens were  in  poor  condition.
          The Administrator's order (herein appealed),  imposing  a  rental
          reduction based on defects in the tub  and  in  the  windows  and
          screens, followed. 


          The petition asserts that the bathtub enamel  "is  faded  due  to
          decals removed by tenant," and that although the tenant "insisted 
          on new windows," he has refused to  accept  screens  subsequently
          offered to him.  The tenant's response states inter alia that the 
          tenant would be willing to pay a higher rental  if  he  could  be
          furnished with windows and screens like those being installed  in
          other apartments.  A subsequent owner's submission includ s  evi-
          dence that the tenant has since declined a  set  of  new  windows






          CL 210064-RO
          tied to a rental increase, and that the tub has been repaired.

          Having carefully considered the record, the  Commissioner  is  of
          the opinion that the petition should be denied.

          The petition makes two claims in attacking  the  order  in  ques-
          tion.  The first, that the bathtub enamel  became  faded  through
          the tenant's fault, comes too late.  The  owner  related  to  the
          Administrator only that there was "no  evidence"  of  the  damage
          that was alleged, and  the  present  assertion  that  the  tenant
          caused the damage cannot be made for the first time  on  adminis-
          trative appeal.

          What is meant by the other statement  in  the  petition--alleging
          the tenant's insistence on  "new  windows"  and  his  failure  to
          accept "screens offered"--is not clear.  It was at any  rate  not
          alleged to the Administrator and therefore, like the first  claim
          discussed above, cannot be entertained now.

          The arguments made in petitioner's subsequent letter, also raised 
          too late in the proceeding, are in addition  irrelevant  to  this
          appeal.  The first statement therein, that an enclosed bill shows 
          the tub to have been resurfaced, might  provide  support  for  an
          application to restore the rent, but cannot  undermine  the  rent
          reduction previously ordered.  The other argument consists  of  a
          recitation of these facts:  after the tenant had written  to  the
          Commissioner that he would welcome high-quality  windows  with  a
          concomitant rental increase, the owner offered him precisely such 
          an  arrangement,  which  the  tenant   declined.    The   implied
          conclusion is apparently that the tenant does not  really  desire
          good windows; but whether  or  not  he  does  is  not  at  issue.
          Pursuant to complaint, the Administrator found,  after  impartial
          inspection, that the windows were  inadequate.   That  is  why  a
          rental reduction was ordered, and the tenant's  current  feelings
          about windows and rent have nothing to do with whether that order 
          was correct.

          Petitioner in sum having shown no error  on  the  Administrator's
          part, it is 




          THEREFORE ORDERED,  in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, that this 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