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
          APPEALS OF                           :  DOCKET NOS.: 
                                              :               DL-110065-RO &
                                              :               EK-110329-RO   
               JAIME ASSOCIATES,              :
                                              :   RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS.:
                                              :              DH-110539-S &
                                              :              EA-110041-OR
                                PETITIONER    :   
          ------------------------------------X   


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On December 22, 1989 and November 28, 1990, the above-named 
          owner-petitioner filed two Petitions for Administrative Review, 
          consolidated herein, of two orders issued on November 29, 1989 and 
          October 25, 1990, respectively, by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 
          Union Hall Street, Jamaica, NY, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 102-30 Queens Boulevard, Apt. 5S, Forest 
          Hills, NY wherein the Administrator directed the restoration of 
          services and determined that a rent reduction was warranted, and 
          subsequently denied the owner's application for a restoration of 
          rent.
               
               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 by the administrative appeal.  

               This proceeding was initially commenced on August 25, 1989 by 
          the subject tenant filing a complaint of decrease in services, 
          alleging, among other things, that the bathtub was discolored and 
          in need of glazing; that the kitchen cabinets were in need of re- 
          staining; that the closet door in the bedroom had broken knobs; and 
          that the ceiling in the living room had peeling paint. 

               On September 1, 1989, a copy of the complaint was sent to the 
          owner with instructions to file an answer within twenty days. The 
          record reveals that the owner did not file an answer.













          DL-110065-RO/EK-110329-RO


               On November 16, 1989, a Division staff member made a physical 
          inspection of the subject apartment to investigate the tenant's 
          claims.  The inspector reported, among other things, that the 
          bathtub was stained; that the cabinets in the kitchen were in need 
          of re-staining; that a door knob to a closet in the bedroom was 
          missing; and that flaking paint and cracks were evident on the 
          ceiling in the living room.

               On November 29, 1989, the Administrator issued an order under 
          Docket No. DH-110539-S, reducing the tenant's rent to the level 
          that was in effect prior to the last rent guidelines increase based 
          on the above-mentioned items of the November 16, 1989 inspection 
          report.  

               In the petition for administrative review (PAR) under Docket 
          No. DL-110065-RO, the owner seeks reversal of the November 29, 1989 
          order based upon the submission of a tenant-signed statement dated 
          December 7, 1989 which advises: "Repairs as listed were taken care 
          of with the exception of the tub."  The owner claims that each of 
          the items were restored as per the tenant statement, and further 
          states that the bathtub has been cleaned.

               In answer to the PAR, the tenant states that repairs were made 
          to the items in question with the exception of the kitchen 
          cabinets.

               On January 9, 1990, the subject owner filed an application to 
          restore rent stating, among other things, that the items cited in 
          the November 29, 1989 order had been restored.

               On March 1, 1990, a copy of the owner's application was sent 
          to the tenant.  The tenant interposed an answer on March 8, 1990 
          but the assertions therein were not relevant to the issues raised 
          in the application.

               On September 28, 1990, a Division inspector visited the 
          subject apartment to investigate the owner's claims.  In his report 
          the inspector stated, among other things, that the kitchen cabinets 
          needed to be re-stained, further noting some cabinet doors had 
          unmatched stain colors; and that the painting in the living room 
          was unworkmanlike.

               On October 25, 1990, the Administrator issued an order under 
          Docket No. EA-110041-OR, denying the owner's rent restoration 
          application based on the results of the September 28, 1990 
          inspection report.  

               In the PAR under EK-110329-RO, the owner seeks reversal of the 
          October 25, 1990 order and advises that the kitchen cabinets and 
          DL-110065-RO/EK-110329-RO








          the living room ceiling have been corrected to the tenant's 
          satisfaction and, in support, submits a copy of a tenant-signed 
          work order dated October 31, 1990, which states: "cabinets 
          restained and ceiling corrected."

               The tenant did not file an answer to the PAR under EK-110329- 
          RO.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's PAR under 
          DL-110065-RO should be denied and the owner's PAR under EK-110329- 
          RO should be denied.

               Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the legal regulated 
          rent to the level in effect prior to the most recent guidelines 
          adjustment, 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.

               Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance. 

               As to the Administrator's November 29, 1989 order, the 
          evidence of record shows that the Administrator based his 
          determination on the entire record, including the November 16, 1989 
          Division inspection which identified, and corroborated, the 
          tenant's claims.  Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator correctly determined that the owner had failed to 
          maintain services and properly reduced the tenant's rent.

               The tenant-signed statement of December 7, 1989 post-dates the 
          Administrator's November 29, 1989 order and, as a result, the 
          assertions in the statement about completed repairs fail to show 
          that this order was not warranted.  

               The Administrator's October 25, 1990 order was also based on 
          a prior (September 28, 1990) Division inspection report, which 
          reflected that the painting work in the living room was 
          unworkmanlike and the kitchen cabinets remained in need of re- 
          staining.  Therefore, the Administrator correctly determined that 
          the owner had failed to restore services and properly denied the 
          owner's application.

               The tenant-signed statement of October 31, 1990 similarly 
          post-dates the Administrator's October 25, 1990 order and, as a 
          result, the assertions in the statement about work to the cabinets 
          and the living room ceiling fail to show that this order was not 
          warranted.

          DL-110065-RO/EK-110329-RO
















               The rent reduction remains in effect until an order restoring 
          rent is issued by the DHCR, pursuant to another rent restoration 
          application which the owner is advised to file if all repairs have 
          been completed.    

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

               ORDERED, that both petitions herein (DL-110065-RO and EK- 
          110329-RO) be, and the same hereby are, denied and the two orders 
          of the Rent Administrator under docket nos. DH-110539-S and EA- 
          110041-OR be, and the same hereby are, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Acting 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