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

          APPEAL OF                           :  DOCKET NO.: DL-110069-RO
                    JAIME ASSOCIATES,         :   DRO DOCKET NO.:
                                              :              DH-110540-S
                                PETITIONER    :   TENANT: FRED PASSICK


               On December 22, 1989, the above-named owner-petitioner filed 
          a Petition for Administrative Review of an order issued on November 
          28, 1989 by the Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, NY, concerning the housing accommodation known as 102-30 
          Queens Boulevard, Apt. 6A, Forest Hills, NY, wherein the 
          Administrator directed the restoration of services, further finding 
          that a rent reduction based thereon was warranted.

               The issue in this appeal is whether the Administrator's order 
          was warranted.
               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 commenced on August 25, 1989 by the 
          subject tenant filing a complaint of decrease in services, 
          alleging, among other things, that the tiles in the bathroom needed 
          regrouting and the soap dish was broken; that the kitchen faucet 
          leaked; that there was a burn on the kitchen counter, apparent 
          since taking occupancy; and that there was a crack on the living 
          room ceiling.

               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 discloses no answer from the owner in response to the 
          tenant's complaint.


               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 tiles by the faucets needed caulking and the soap dish 
          (handle) was broken; that the kitchen faucet mixer leaked; that 
          there were burns on the kitchen counter top; and that the living 
          room ceiling had a long, thin crack. 

               On November 28, 1989, the Administrator issued the order 
          hereunder review, 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 in the inspector's report.

               In the petition for administrative review (PAR), the owner 
          seeks reversal of the order, asserting that an answer had been 
          supplied (certified mail receipt dated September 15, 1989 
          submitted).  The owner also submits 1) a tenant-signed statement 
          dated December 8, 1989 advising that caulking work was made to the 
          bathroom tiles and the repairs were made to the kitchen faucet; and 
          2) a letter dated December 13, 1989 from the owner to the subject 
          tenant, referring to the living room ceiling crack and requesting 
          that the tenant advise about an access date for painting work in 
          the apartment.  Lastly, the owner asserts that the burn on the 
          kitchen counter was caused by the complainant tenant's 
          carelessness, further stating that the owner does not replace 
          counter tops when a tenant burns same with a hot pot or cigarettes, 
          preferring instead to supply contact paper.

               In answer to the PAR, the tenant advises, in pertinent part, 
          that the tile work was not workmanlike; that the kitchen faucet 
          still occasionally leaks despite the owner's work; that the burn on 
          the kitchen counter top was there when the tenant moved in; and 
          that a date has been given to the owner for painting.

               On March 30, 1990, the owner filed a rebuttal to the tenant's 
          answer disputing the tenant's comments in the answer, however, the 
          specific assertions are not relevant to this appeal proceeding.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition 
          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 
          which it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required 

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

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

               Although the owner states in the petition that an answer was 
          supplied and submits a copy of a certified mail receipt dated 
          September 15, 1989, the documents supplied with the PAR (ie, the 
          December 8, 1989 tenant-signed statement and the owner's December 
          13, 1989 letter) are dated subsequent to the issuance of the order 
          appealed from.  Therefore, the assertions of the documents do not 
          establish that the Administrator's order was not warranted.   The 
          owner's further claim that the kitchen counter burn was caused by 
          the carelessness of the tenant is rejected as self-serving.

               The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent 
          restoration application was denied on September 4, 1990 (DRO Docket 
          No. EA-110043-OR).  The rent reduction remains in effect until an 
          order restoring rent is issued by the DHCR.

               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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 


                                             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