DA110210RO/DA110080RT
                                  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.: DA110210RO 
                                                               DA110080RT
          RICHARD ALBERT                          RENT
          NORA & AGATHA FITZGERALD                ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: BL110739S 
                                 PETITIONERS            
          ----------------------------------x

           ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING OWNER'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 
          REVIEW IN PART AND DENYING TENANT'S PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE    
                                  REVIEW
                                          
               The above referenced administrative appeals have been 
          consolidated as both contain common issues of law and fact and are 
          appeals of the same rent reduction order.
               
               The above named petitioner-owner and petitioner-tenant filed 
          timely Petitions for Administrative Review against an order of the 
          Rent Administrator issued on December 29, 1988. The order concerned 
          housing accommodations known as Apt 2B located at 93-41 222nd 
          Street, Queens Village, N.Y.  The Administrator directed 
          restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction for failure to 
          maintain required services.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by these 
          appeals.

               This proceeding was commenced on April 23, 1987 by the filing 
          of a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein it was 
          alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain 
          required apartment services.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on June 24, 
          1988 and stated, in substance, that all required services are being 
          maintained and that this proceeding is one of 28 dockets 
          consolidating 306 complaints received on the same day.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on November 14, 1988.  The 
          apartment was reinspected on December 21, 1988.  The inspections 
          revealed the following:













          DA110210RO/DA110080RT

                    1.   Intercom system not working properly,

                    2.   Bell and buzzer system not working properly,

                    3.   Vermin infestation in apartment,

                    4.   Walls and ceiling in need of scraping and have 
                         peeling paint and plaster, and

                    5.   Exterior screens on bedroom window not installed 
                         properly.

          All other services complained of were found to have been 
          maintained.

               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on          
          December 29, 1988 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal 
          to the percentage of the most recent guidelines adjustment for the 
          lease commencing prior to June 1, 1988.

               Both the owner and tenant have appealed the Administrator's 
          order.  The owner states that the order being appealed makes 
          contradictory findings with regard to the need for scraping of the 
          apartment walls and ceilings, that prior DHCR proceedings have 
          determined that the bell and buzzer system, intercom and screens 
          are not required services and that extermination services are 
          provided on a regular basis.  The petition was served on the tenant 
          on February 23, 1989.  The tenant filed a response and requested 
          that the order being appealed be affirmed.

               The tenant's petition requests that the Administrator's order 
          be modified to reflect that the tenants of the subject apartment 
          are Nora and Agatha Fitzgerald. The order being appealed sets forth 
          Nora Fitzgerald as the tenant.  The petition was served on the 
          owner on February 7, 1989.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the tenant's petition should be 
          denied but that the owner's petition should be granted in part and 
          the order being appealed should be affirmed as modified herein.

               With regard to the tenant's appeal, the tenants are advised 
          that the rent reduction runs with the apartment and not the tenant 
          or tenants whose name appears on the complaint.  Therefore, so long 
          as the apartment is properly designated on the order being 
          appealed, the fact that both tenants were not listed as tenants is 
          not grounds for modifying the order.

               The owner's appeal is granted in part, to the extent of 
          revoking the findings regarding the intercom and bell and buzzer 
          system.  The Commissioner notes that prior rulings have established 
          that the owner is not required to maintain an intercom or bell and 






          DA110210RO/DA110080RT

          buzzer system in the subject building (see SJR 4776; BB130149RT; 
          BB130151RT; BB130356RO; CK110096RO).

               The order is affirmed with regard to the findings regarding 
          the infestation, peeling paint and plaster and screens.  The 
          Commissioner notes that, pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent 
          Stabilization Code, a tenant may apply to the DHCR for a rent 
          reduction based on the owner's failure to maintain required 
          services and the Administrator shall reduce the rent upon finding 
          that such services have not been maintained.  The Code defines 
          required services to be those services the owner was required to 
          maintain on the applicable base date including repairs and 
          maintenance.

               The findings regarding vermin infestation, peeling paint and 
          plaster and missing screens are supported by the entire record 
          including the results of the on-site physical inspections described 
          above.  The Commissioner notes that, with regard to the screens, 
          the owner has not established that this service is not a "required 
          service" within the meaning of the Code.  The owner does no more 
          than express a belief based on the age of the building.

               With regard to the peeling paint and plaster, the owner argues 
          that the order being appealed states that the walls and ceilings 
          have not been scraped and then goes on to state that they have.  A 
          review of the inspection reports reveals that the inspectors 
          reported that there was no water seepage from the walls and 
          ceilings but that they did need scraping and were peeling paint and 
          plaster.  This finding is, therefore, affirmed.  The owner's other 
          contentions on appeal are without merit.  The order being appealed 
          is affirmed as modified.

               The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement which 
          resulted from the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance 
          of this order and opinion.  The Commissioner notes that the owner's 
          rent restoration application (Docket No. DB110059OR) has been 
          granted by the Administrator.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 
          is 

               ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is 
          denied, and it is further







               ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted in part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and 












          DA110210RO/DA110080RT

          the same hereby is, affirmed as modified herein.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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