DL 210328-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  DL 210328-RO
                 A.                     SEYFARTH                     LARSEN
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                  PETITIONER      CH 210710-S


          On December 24, 1989,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  timely
          refiled a Petition for Administrative  review  against  an  order
          issued on September 25, 1989, by the District Rent Administrator, 
          92-31 Union  Hall  Street,  Jamaica,  New  York,  concerning  the
          housing accommodation known as Apartment A-2,  376  63rd  Street,
          Brooklyn, New  York,  wherein  the  District  Rent  Administrator
          determined that the owner had failed to maintain  services  which
          warranted a rent reduction.

          The issue in this appeal is whether t e  District  Rent  Adminis-
          trator's order was warranted.

          The applicable section of the law is Section 2523.4 of  the  Rent
          Stabilization Code.

          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 July 25, 1988  by  the  tenant's
          filing of an Individual Tenant Statement of Complaint of Decrease 
          in Services wherein the tenant contended in  substance  that  her
          apartment was infested  with  rats  and  roaches,  the  apartment
          smelled due to dirt in the hallway and clogged up  water  in  the
          yard, the bathroom and one of her bedrooms were without elec-    
          ricity, the  windows  and  kitchen  sink  were  broken,  and  the
          bathroom floor was cracked.

          On October 12, 1988, the  owner  submitted  to  the  Division  of
          Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) a letter dated  October  10,
          1988 from an  exterminating  company  stating  that  the  subject
          building was serviced on a monthly basis  since  1985,  and  four
          tenant's service requests for  the  subject  apartment  dated  in
          September and October of 1988  acknowledging  exterminating  ser-
          vices, the cleaning of the halls, the clearing of the yard drain, 
          and repairs to the bathroom and bedroom lights, the windows,  the
          kitchen sink and cabinets, and the bathroom floor.

          DL 210328-RO

          The subject apartment was physically inspected on  September  12,
          1989 wherein the inspector noted that the window  sashes  in  the
          kitchen, bedroom and living room were rotted; the chain  for  the
          kitchen window was missing; the kitchen sink cabinet  was  rotted
          and the doors were broken; the bathroom floor  was  cracked;  the
          bedroom light fixture was broken, and the e  was  roach  infesta-
          tion in the apartment.

          In Docket  No.  ZCH  210710-S  issued  September  25,  1989,  the
          District Rent Administrator determined that the owner had  failed
          to maintain services for the subject apartment warranting a  rent

          On October 17, 1989, the tenant  submitted  to  DHCR  a  tenant's
          affirmation of non-compliance contending that the owner had still 
          failed to repair the defective conditions in the  subject  apart-

          In this petition,  the  owner  contends  in  substance  that  the
          District Rent Administrator's order is incorrect  and  should  be
          reversed because the owner immediately  repaired  all  the  items
          listed on the tenant's complaint upon notification from  DHCR  on
          September 23, 1988; the tenant signed off on the service requests 
          stating that "the apartment is in satisfactory condition and that 
          all complaints to DHCR that I  made  are  now  alright  and  cor-
          rected"; the tenant does not keep the apartment in  a  clean  and
          sanitary condition and the apartment is always  overcrowded  with
          visitors; and upon receiving the Administrator's order the  owner
          immediately contracted to have the repairs made.  In  support  of
          these contentions, the owner submits a paid invoice dated October 
          3, 1989 for repairs made to the subject apartment at  a  cost  of
          $1,057.75, three tenant's service requests for the subject apart 
          ment dated in October of 1989 which were signed by the tenant,  a
          letter dated October 20,  1989  from  the  exterminating  company
          stating that the  tenant  refused  them  access  to  the  subject
          apartment; a paid invoice dated October 17, 1989 for repairs made 

          to the subject apartment at a cost of $403.77, a cancelled  check
          dated October 26, 1989 in the sum of $403.77, and a letter  dated
          October 27, 1989 purportedly from the  tenant  stating  that  the
          owner had made the necessary repairs and that she wished to with 
          draw her complaint.

          The tenant did not submit a response to the owner's petition.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be

          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides in  perti-
          nent part that a tenant may apply to DHCR for a reduction of  the
          legal regulated rent to the level in effect  prior  to  the  most
          recent guidelines adjustment, and DHCR shall so reduce  the  rent
          for the period for which it is found that  the  owner  failed  to
          maintain required services.

          DL 210328-RO
          The evidence of record adequately  supports  the  Administrator's
          determination that all of the conditions complained of  were  not
          corrected by the owner despite ample notice and  the  opportunity
          to do so.  A physical inspection conducted several  months  after
          the owner was first notified of the tenant's complaint  confirmed
          that all of the necessary repairs had n t  been  done.   Further-
          more, a review of the Division's records concerning  the  owner's
          rent restoration application under Docket No.  D  210129-OR  dis-
          closes that the  owner  still  had  not  repaired  the  defective
          conditions listed in the Administrator's order as of December  4,
          1990. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the  Administrator
          properly ordered a rent reduction for the subject apartment based 
          on a diminution of services.

          The Commissioner rejects the owner's unsubstantiated  contentions
          that the tenant does not keep the apartment clean  and  that  the
          apartment is overcrowded as these contentions were raised for the 
          first time on appeal and thus, may  not  be  considered  at  this
          stage of the proceeding as this is not a de novo proceeding.

          With regard to the owner's submission of a letter from the tenant 
          requesting withdrawal of her complaint,  the  Commissioner  notes
          that pursuant to Section 2520.13 of the Rent Stabilization  Code,
          an agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any  provision
          of the Rent Stabilization Law or Code is void.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to file an application with DHCR for a restoration of  rent
          based on a restoration of services, if the facts so warrant.

          The Commissioner cautions the owner that it may not  collect  any
          rent increase above the level established in the  Administrator's
          order until an order is issued restoring the rent.

          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 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