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

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 DE 410138 RO 
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMIN.       
                                                 DOCKET NO.: CI 430023 B
                                                 PREMISES: 319 W. 35th 
                                                 Street, New York, N.Y.     
                   RONALD DEMILT,           

                              PETITIONER      : 


               The  above-named  owner  filed   a   timely   petition   for
          administrative review of an order issued concerning  the  housing
          accommodations relating to the above described docket number.

               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 petition.  

               On September 3, 1988, the tenant of  apartment  5E,  a  rent
          stabilized apartment in the subject premises, filed  a  complaint
          of a decrease in  building  wide  services.   The  complained  of
          conditions were as follows:  security, the locks  on  the  front,
          back and basement doors didn't work, the buzzer and intercom  did
          not work; cleanliness, when it rained there was drip all the  way
          down to the second floor. 

               On October 11, 1988, the owner was served with the complaint 
          and was afforded an opportunity to review it and twenty  days  to
          comment thereupon.

               The owner interposed his answer on  October  18,  1988,  and
          stated  that  basement  door  was  locked,  the  front  door  was
          operating properly and the back door which the complainant was 

          referring to was unclear.  The owner goes on to state that if the 
          tenant was referring to the back door which leads to the back 
          yard, it was also functioning properly.  The owner further stated 
          that  the  complainant  never  contacted  the  management  office
          regarding the leak, nor does he indicate  where  the  "drip"  was
          located and that he cannot search the building for a "drip"  that
          has not been reported by telephone or in person.  The owner  goes
          on to deny the  tenant's  allegation  regarding  the  buzzer  and

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE 410138 RO 
          intercom system asserting that  it  was  working  properly.   The
          owner also refers to docket number CH 410223 R asserting that the 
          tenant was mistakenly undercharged and  that  he  is  asking  the
          Division to raise the rent  to  the  correct  legal  rental.   In
          addition, the owner asserted that since July 1, 1988, the  tenant
          filed two complaints with the Division and that this  constituted

               On March 15, 1989, a staff inspection  was  conducted  by  a
          Division inspector.  The inspector stated in his report that  the
          door locks were broken,  that  the  intercom  and  buzzer  system
          required repair, the halls had been painted,  there  was  peeling
          paint on the fifth floor and a leak from the roof. 

               On May 1, 1989, the Administrator issued an order  directing
          restoration of services and reducing the  stabilization  rent  in
          apartment 5E of the subject premises, and, reducing maximum legal 
          rents in the rent controlled apartments.

               In his petition for administrative review the owner requests 
          that the Administrator's order be reversed.  The owner states  in
          the petition that the bell and intercom system are operative  and
          that the hall was completely painted.  With regard  to  the  rear
          door, the owner states that there is no  lock  due  to  the  Fire
          Code, in that the door is an escape route in the event of a fire. 
          With regard to the other doors, the owner states  that  they  are
          working, but that when he repairs them, someone breaks them.

               The tenant of apartment 3E  answered  the  owner's  petition
          requesting that the petition be denied.  The tenant contends that 
          the owner does not prove or even allege any error in fact or  law
          in the  Administrator's  order.   The  tenant  asserts  that  the
          owner's statements that all  conditions  have  been  restored  or
          cannot be restored due to the Fire Code do not set forth  anytime
          frame with respect to the issue date of the order or the date  of
          inspection.  The tenant asserts that the  owner's  statements  in
          his petition are more appropriate for an application  to  restore
          the rent.  The tenant also states that as of May  16,  1989,  the
          rear door is still not secure and that the locks are still broken 
          on the basement door and need replacement.   

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition  should
          be denied.

               The owner's contentions in his  petition  are  found  to  be
          without merit  collectively  or  individually.   The  contentions
          regarding the rear door and the Fire Code were not offered in the 
          record below and are therefore inadmissible  on  appeal  for  the
          first time.  With regard to the statement that the other services 
          were restored, the owner does not make clear whether  it  is  his
          contention that services were restored before  the  building  was
          inspected or the order was issued, or whether the  contention  is
          that  services  were  restored  following  the  issuance  of  the
          Administrator's order.  If it is the  former,  then  the  owner's
          allegation is belied by the report of the Division inspector.  If 
          it is the latter, then the Rent  Administrator's  order  reducing
          the rent was correct when issued.  

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: DE 410138 RO 
               This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's  right
          to file an application with the Division  for  a  restoration  of
          rent based upon a  restoration  of  services,  if  the  facts  so

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it 

               ORDERED, that this petition be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          denied, and that the District Rent Administrator's order be,  and
          the same hereby is, affirmed.


                                          ELLIOT SANDER
                                          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