DF120093RT
                                  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.: DF120093RT

                    Geza Beczak,

                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: DC120065RP
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 31, 1989, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 26, 1989, 
          by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation 
          known as 43-19 41st Street, Apt. 1-B, Sunnyside, New York, wherein 
          the Administrator determined that the order previously entered on 
          April 21, 1988, which reduced the rent of the subject apartment, 
          should be modified.

          The appealed order stated that:

               The evidence or record indicates that a rent reduction 
               for painting was not warranted due to tenant's 
               postponement of painting until May, 1988.

               Therefore, it is ordered that the above-mentioned order 
               previously entered herein be, and it hereby is, modified 
               by deleting the painting issue.  Consequently, the 10% 
               MLR rent reduction is without merit.

               Additionally, based on the evidence that repairs to the 
               flushometer were completed in November 1988 and new 
               windows were installed throughout the apartment, it is 
               ordered that the above-mentioned order be further 
               modified by restoring rent in the amount of eleven 
               dollars ($11.00) per month effective December 1, 1988, 
               the 1st of the month following the date repairs were 
               completed.

               This proceeding is hereby terminated without prejudice to 
               the tenant's right to file a new complaint based on the 












          DF120093RT

               painting issue.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          scope of the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          modified the order of April 21, 1988.

          The owner filed a request to reconsider the Rent Administrator's 
          rent reduction order based upon fraud, illegality, or irregularity 
          in a vital matter.

          The tenant filed an answer to the request for reconsideration 
          alleging that although she requested that the paint-job be 
          postponed several times due to family illness, none of the painters 
          ever returned to do the painting.

          On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the Rent Administrator erred by modifying the rent reduction order 
          of April 21, 1988, issued under Docket No. BH120366S, because the 
          owner failed to complete the paint-job and what was done was 
          completed in an unworkmanlike manner.

          The petition was served on the owner on July 18, 1989, and on July 
          28, 1989, the owner filed an answer to the petition stating that 
          the tenant disingenuously denied the owner's workers access to 
          complete the painting.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          A review of the file shows that the rent for the subject apartment 
          was reduced pursuant to an inspection held on January 29, 1988, 
          which disclosed that, among other things; the owner had failed to 
          provide painting services.

          However, evidence in the file indicates that despite several 
          attempts to paint the apartment, the tenant postponed the painting 
          until May, 1988.

          The Commissioner notes that the tenant's answer filed on March 29, 
          1989, concedes this point.




          Accordingly, upon the facts found herein, the Commissioner finds 
          that the Rent Administrator properly modified the rent reduction 
          order of April 21, 1988, to the extent of deleting the painting 
          issue and restoring the rent in the amount of 10% of the Maximum 






          DF120093RT

          Legal Rent and by restoring the rent in the amount of eleven 
          dollars per month, effective December 1, 1988.

          The Commissioner notes that if the tenant wants to have the subject 
          apartment painted, it will be necessary to file a new complaint 
          with the DHCR.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
                    


          ISSUED:






                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner