DI 410007 RO
                                  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.: DI 410007-RO

               Robert Handler, Nominee,        DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
                                               DOCKET NO.: CL 430077-B
                                   PETITIONER
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On September 12, 1989 the above-named petitioner-owner  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on August  8,  1989
          by the District Rent  Administrator,  92-31  Union  Hall  Street,
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          279 East 44th Street, New York, New York, Apt. 14-F.  

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in  the  record
          and has carefully considered that portion of the record  relevant
          to the issues raised in the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein  is  whether  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          properly issued a building-wide rent reduction order for the sub 
          ject premises, based upon dirty public area  rugs  and  worn  and
          torn public area wallpaper.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, reduced 
          the maximum legal regulated rent for the subject apartment to the 
          level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase,  which
          commenced before the effective date of the order.

          This order was based upon an inspection held on  June  19,  1989,
          which showed that the public area rugs were dirty and  the  wall-
          paper worn and torn.  No evidence of dirty  or  rusty  water  was
          shown.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner requests reversal of the District 
          Rent  Administrator's  order  and  contends  that  the   tenant's
          complaint should dismissed.  The owner stated that  the  tenant's
          complaint concerned  complaints of  a  de  minimus  and  cosmetic
          nature and that the District Rent  Administrator  never  afforded
          him an opportunity to  correct  the  conditions  alleged  in  the
          tenant's complaint.
          After a careful consideration of the entire  evidence  of  record
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          The tenant initiated this proceeding by  filing  a  Statement  of
          Complaint of a Decrease in Building-Wide services on December 22, 
          1988, claiming, inter alia, that the  owner  is  not  maintaining
          public area rugs and wall paper.

          The file reveals that a copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed 






          DI 410007 RO
          to the owner on January 11, 1989 and  that  he  filed  an  answer
          thereto, on  February  15,  1989.   The  answer  noted  that  the
          corridor carpeting and wall  covering,  although  old,  is  still
          serviceable and that they are regularly cleaned.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization  Code,  a
          tenant may apply for a reduction of the legal regulated rent  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  as
          defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include repairs and maintenance.

          The inspection held on June  19,  1989,  supported  the  tenant's
          allegations.

          The  file  clearly  reveals  that  the  owner  was  afforded   an
          opportunity to respond to the tenant's complaint and that he,  in
          fact, did so on February 15, 1989.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that there is no basis to  the
          owner's argument that he had no opportunity to make the  repairs;
          nor is there any basis to the owner's claim  that  the  requested
          repairs were of a minor or cosmetic nature.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the  Rent  Administrator
          properly  determined  that  the  owner  had  failed  to  maintain
          services based on the evidence of record, including  the  results
          of the physical inspection of the subject premises, and correctly 
          reduced the rent of the subject accommodation.

          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  Administrator's  order  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,
          affirmed.

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          ISSUED:
                                                                          
                                                       JOSEPH  A.  D'AGOSTA
                                                       Deputy Commissioner