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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: DK410056R0 
                                                              SJR #7031      
          Rachel Tarasoff c/o
          Kucker, Kraus and Bruh,                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: DH410154S      

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. D
                                                             8 West 87th. St.
                                                             New York, NY


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on October 16, 1989 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 this administrative appeal.

          This proceeding was commenced on August 7, 1989 by a tenant filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various  
          services in the subject apartment. The Commissioner notes the 
          specificity of the tenant's complaint:

               1. There are leaks in the bathroom ceiling and walls; the      
                  owner's attempts to repair were unsatisfactory.
               2. The toilet flushometer is defective; the toilet is off-     
               3. The leak from the pipe of the bathtub was repaired in an  
                  unsatisfactory manner.
               4. The bathtub faucets leak and are defective.
               5. The piping for the shower curtain is defective.
               6. The door from the bathroom to the kitchen is defective.
               7. The kitchen floor was replaced unsatisfactorily. It brickles  
                  and does not cover floor completely, causing cabinets and  
                  stove to be off-balanced.
               8. The door between the kitchen and the living room cannot be  
                  slid open as in the past.

               9. The light in the kitchen was replaced in a shabby manner, 
                  creating a gap around the light fixture through the wall. 
               10. The apartment door is defective. It is loose, including the 
                  door knob.   
               11. Two electrical outlets and two switches in the living room 
                   do not work.
               12. The fireplace is unusable.
               13. The apartment was painted in an unsatisfactory manner. The 
                   floor is splattered with paint.
               14. The sprinkler system is defective.

          The tenant submitted a copy of a July 25, 1989 letter to the owner, 
          which is typewritten in single space, detailing the conditions in 
          the bathroom, the kitchen, the main entrance and the living/sleeping 
          quarters. In relevant part, the tenant stated:

                         "All communication should be in writing
                          and not over the phone. All work on my
                          apartment should be done Mon.-Fri. during
                          normal working hours, and no entry should be
                          permitted without my prior notification and 

                         If all the stated matters are not attended to
                         in a reasonable period of time, I shall have no
                         alternative but to direct my complaints to NYS
                         Division of Housing and Community Renewal."    

          In an answer filed on August 23, 1989, the owner asserted in 
          relevant part that the tenant refused to be specific about his 
          complaints, that the tenant never contacted the owner to schedule 
          repair times, that there is no leaking faucet in the bathtub per the 
          owner's inspection, that the fireplace is not usable as in other 
          apartments, that apartment was painted and the kitchen renovated 
          last year, that the sprinkler system is in perfect working order, 
          and that the owner is willing to repair but the tenant refuses 
          access. Attached to the answer were copies of various letters 
          inquiring from the tenant specifics on what need to be repaired, and 
          a copy of a response to the tenant's July 25, 1989 letter, denying 
          some of the allegations in the complaint and otherwise asserting 
          that services are being maintained and provided.

          The Commissioner notes that the owner's answer failed to prove that 
          she complied with the regular mailing, certified mailing with return 
          receipt and other requirements of Policy Statement 90-5 (No Access 
          Inspections; Arranging Repairs).

          On September 29, 1989, a physical inspection of the apartment was 
          conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of 
          defective conditions.

          By order dated October 16, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the 

          stabilized rent based on these inspection results:

               1. The bathroom ceiling paint did not cover the peeling paint  
                  and cracks.
               2. The toilet pipe located behind the toilet bowl is leaking.
               3. The toilet bowl is not level.
               4. The tub faucet unit is leaking.
               5. The shower rod hanger is missing.
               6. The sliding door located between the living room and the    
                  kitchen does not open or close.
               7. The tiles located behind the refrigerator have not been     
               8. The wall area where the fixture has been installed has not 
                  been repaired.
               9. The entrance door knobs are loose and has large opening in 
                  that area.
               10. The switch in the living room is defective. The light    
                   fixtures have exposed wires.
               11. The living room has a defective 2-way outlet.
               12. The fireplace is defective.
               13. The front bedroom walls was painted unsatisfactorily. The 
                   bathroom base molding was not painted.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that 
          the tenant refused access by a "conscious pattern by the tenant of 
          failing to inform the petitioner of what items in his apartment 
          require repairs" prior to the filing of the complaint. The owner 
          submitted copies of correspondence before the initiation of this 
          proceeding advising the tenant when an electrician or the proper 
          repair person is available; however, the tenant failed to notify the 
          agent when to allow access. In addition, the owner alleged that the 
          tenant sent communications to the owner instead of the agent and 
          building superintendent who, by established procedure which the 
          tenant was aware of, were the proper persons to do repairs.

          In answer, the tenant denied the allegations in the petition and 
          otherwise asserted that he allowed access to the owner's amateur and 
          unprofessional workmen who performed inferior, slipshod and 
          detrimental repairs to the apartment.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
          the petition should be denied.

          The record clearly shows that the Administrator's determination was 
          properly based on a timely inspection which confirmed many of the 
          specific, detailed allegations in the tenant's complaint. These 
          findings in the subject apartment are defective conditions, 


          warranting a rent reduction. The determination was in all respects 
          proper and is hereby sustained.

          The contention that the the tenant failed to specify to the agent 
          and the building superintendent the necessary repairs to be done 
          prior to the filing of the complaint is without merit. The copies of 
          correspondence allegedly advising the tenant when an electrician or 
          the proper repair person is available, and the tenant failing to 
          notify the agent when to allow access, pertain to a period of time 
          prior to the filing of the complaint and are irrelevant. The copies 
          of certificates of mailings were not submitted in the proceeding 
          below prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order and are now 
          submitted for the first time on appeal; accordingly, these 
          submissions are beyond the scope of administrative review, which is 
          limited to the issues and evidence before the Administrator. 
          The Commissioner notes that the tenant's complaint, with the 
          attached July 25, 1989 detailed letter in this case, was sufficient 
          notice to the owner. The owner in fact answered the complaint in a 
          specific manner.

          There is no proof in the record that the tenant refused access. The 
          owner submitted no indication of regular mailing and certified 
          mailing with return receipt, to show a request for or to set a 
          scheduled appointment for repairs which the tenant clearly refused 
          access to. Rather, the record shows otherwise: that access was made, 
          but the repairs were incomplete and ineffective. Accordingly, the 
          Commissioner finds the defense of denied access without merit. 

          The following rent restoration applications by the owner have been 
          denied: EI410210OR and FF410176OR on January 28, 1992, and 
          FF410177OR on October 16, 1992.

          The owner's rent restoration application (GC410125OR) was granted in 
          part on May 24, 1993. Here, the fireplace was found to be a restored 
          service, and that there is still defective paint and plaster in the 
          front bedroom.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted  
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          Order and Opinion.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is 

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 

          that the 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