DD110085RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433




          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: DD110085RO

                    SJL Indiana Co.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: BL110114S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On March 28, 1989 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review of an order issued on February 27, 1989, 
          by the Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation 
          known as 67-25 Dartmouth Street, Apt. 7P, Forest Hills, New York, 
          wherein the Administrator determined that the owner had failed to 
          maintain apartment services and ordered a reduction in rent.

          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 the administrative appeal.

          The proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint by the 
          tenant of a decrease in apartment services which was dated December 
          14, 1987.  The complaint raised numerous conditions including 
          peeling paint and plaster, warped windows, bathroom leaks, and 
          apartment in need of painting having not been painted in four 
          years.

          The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint and 
          responded that it was being investigated and required repairs would 
          be made.

          The tenant was requested by the Division to verify that repairs 
          were made.  The tenant responded on August 16, 1988 that repairs 
          were made, the paint job was bad and the windows either stick or 
          slide down.  Thereafter, inspections were conducted by DHCR Staff 
          inspectors on September 27, 1988 and on January 24, 1989 and 
          confirmed that the painting of the apartment was unworkmanlike 
          resulting in the order herein appealed.
          In the PAR, the owner states that the administrator's order is 
          arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, that the manner of painting 












          DD110085RO

          is not significant in view of the conditions which were found by 
          the order to have been restored, including leaks repaired, that in 
          the absence of an inspection report the owner cannot determine what 
          is classified as "gross unworkmanlike", that the manner in which a 
          service is rendered does not rise to the level of a failure to 
          provide a service, that the owner should not be required to paint 
          the interiors of closets as tenants often do not want to remove 
          their belongings, and that the front door frame cannot be painted 
          unless the tenant is willing to leave the door open for most of the 
          day.

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

          The inspection report dated January 24, 1989 indicated that the 
          paint job in this apartment was poor, that moldings had been left 
          unpainted, that areas of plaster that were painted over needed 
          scraping, that leak damage was showing through in places, that 
          there was cracked and falling plaster, and that the sides of doors, 
          the entrance door frame, and the inside of kitchen cabinets were 
          not painted at all.

          The previous inspection dated September 27, 1988 indicated that 
          there was peeling paint and plaster in various places, that areas 
          of peeling paint were painted over, that there are some water 
          stains, that the inside of kitchen cabinets, the foyer walls, and 
          the hallway throughout the apartment have areas which were not 
          painted or show the old paint through the new.

          In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner finds that it was proper 
          for the Administrator to rely on the results of the two inspections 
          in determining the outcome in this case.

          The owner's petition does not establish any basis for modifying or 
          revoking the Administrator's order which determined, based on a 
          physical inspection, the existence of defective conditions in the 
          subject apartment, that the owner was not maintaining required 
          services and that a rent reduction was warranted.    










          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
          and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is

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






          DD110085RO

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




          ISSUED:




                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner