CL210083RO
                                  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.: CL210083RO
                                                  
          ALLSTATE REALTY ASSOCIATES              RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BL210640S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                       AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

               On December 15, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued on November 9, 1988. The order concerned the 
          housing accommodations known as Apt. 5C located at 1414 East 12th 
          Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.  The Administrator directed restoration of 
          services and ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain 
          required services.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on December 18, 1987 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he 
          alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain 
          required apartment services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on March 21, 
          1988 and stated that access to the apartment had been denied based 
          on the fact that the tenant had been hospitalized but that the 
          tenant had returned home and the owner would investigate the 
          complaint and make any necessary repairs.  The tenant filed a reply 
          on September 22, 1988 and stated, in relevant part, that the 
          painting had been done in two stages for the tenant's benefit and 
          at the convenience of the painter.  
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on October 24, 1988 and 
          the inspector reported that the bedroom wall behind the radiator 
          was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner. All other services were 
          found to have been maintained, including the bathroom paint job, 












          CL210083RO

          which was reported to have been done in a workmanlike manner.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 9, 1988 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to 
          the percentage of the most recent guideline adjustment for the 
          tenant's lease commencing prior to March 1, 1988.  In the order, 
          the Administrator stated the inspection revealed that the bedroom 
          wall behind the radiator had been repaired in an unworkmanlike 
          manner and that the bathroom paint job had been done in an 
          unworkmanlike manner.

               On appeal the owner states that the tenant signed a copy of a 
          work order on July 26, 1988 and attested to the fact that the 
          apartment was completely painted. The owner also states that 
          further repairs were made to the subject apartment on December 7, 
          1988.  The petition was served on the tenant on February 23, 1989.  

               The tenant filed a response on March 3, 1989 and stated, in 
          relevant part, that the owner had restored services.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          and the order hereunder review should be revoked.

               On September 22, 1988 the tenant filed a reply to the owner's 
          response to the complaint and admitted that the apartment had been 
          painted and that all conditions cited in the portion of the 
          complaint describing the defective wall behind the radiator had 
          been corrected.  The tenant made numerous complaints about other 
          conditions existing in apartment but did not refer to the items 
          cited in the Administrator's order.  The DHCR inspector who 
          conducted the above-described inspection reported that the wall 
          repair was done in an unworkmanlike manner but did not elaborate on 
          the nature of the unworkmanlike repairs.  The Commissioner further 
          notes that the DHCR inspector reported that the bathroom paint job 
          was done in a workmanlike manner but the Administrator erroneously 
          cited an unworkmanlike paint job in the order being appealed.

               The tenant did not complain about the conditions cited in the 
          Administrator's order in his September 22, 1988 reply.  In view of 
          all of the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that the owner timely 
          addressed the tenant's complaint and whatever defects the inspector 
          reported were new conditions of which the owner had no notice.  The 
          Commissioner further notes that the tenant's March 3, 1989 response 
          to the petition stated that the defects the inspector noted had 
          been repaired.  The owner apparently addressed the new conditions 
          in a prompt manner upon receipt of the Administrator's order.

               Based on all of the foregoing, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that the petition should be granted and the order being 
          appealed should be revoked.  If the tenant owes arrears based on 
          the Commissioner's decision herein, said arrears may be paid off in 






          CL210083RO

          twenty four (24) equal monthly installments.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 
          is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, revoked.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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