DF210301RT
                                  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.: DF210301RT

                    Donald Gruskoff,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: DA210028OR

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


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on May 31, 1989, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 1177 East 98th Street, Apartment 3J, 
          Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the 
          owner's application to restore rent previously reduced per Docket 
          No. BG210440S.

          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 petition.

          The owner commenced this proceeding by filing a rent restoration 
          application asserting that the conditions which provided the bases 
          for the rent reduction had been corrected.  With the application 
          the owner submitted an undated handwritten statement the owner 
          states was signed by the tenant, to the effect that all repairs to 
          the apartment had been completed.  However, the tenant's answer 
          disputed the owner's claim that all conditions had been corrected.  
          The tenant also makes a bare suggestion that any release the tenant 
          provided the owner was "by duress".

          An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on March 15, 
          1989 at the request of the Tenant Services Unit.  The inspector 
          reported that the walls and ceilings of the foyer and two bedrooms 
          had been plastered and painted, that the apartment entrance door 
          and lock, and the bedroom wall outlets had been repaired, and that 
          the bell buzzer system was working.
          A notice was sent to the owner advising that the inspector had also 
          found that the radiator valves in the two bedrooms needed to be 












          DF210301RT

          replaced.  The owner responded that new radiator valves had been 
          installed.

          On May 31, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued an order restoring 
          the rent previously reduced (per BG210440S) based on a finding that 
          the owner had corrected the conditions that had given rise to the 
          rent reduction.

          The tenant filed a petition for administrative review challenging 
          the determination, reiterating that various conditions had not been 
          corrected.  In support, the tenant submits the report of an 
          inspection conducted on March 28, 1989, at the request of the 
          Enforcement Bureau in connection with then pending harassment 
          proceedings.  In pertinent part, the inspection report noted that 
          while the apartment had been painted, it could not be ascertained 
          if lead paint had been removed, that the master bedroom ceiling and 
          wall were stained due to seepage, that the apartment door lock 
          needed adjustment and realignment, that the door had various 
          deficiencies, and that the intercom did not operate properly in 
          that it was barely audible.

          The owner's answer points to the tenant's written "statement" that 
          all violations were removed, and asserts that the owner is willing 
          "to go into [tenant's] apartment again to determine if there is a 
          need for further repairs."

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

          The Tenant Services Unit and the Enforcement Bureau inspections 
          were conducted within two weeks of each other.  The record below 
          detailed evidence of repairs with regard to the master bedroom 
          ceiling and walls, and to the apartment entrance door and lock.  
          However, the Enforcement inspection report indicated evidence of 
          water seepage in the bedroom and door defects.

          Notwithstanding the above, the Rent Administrator processed the 
          rent restoration application properly in accordance with the normal 
          procedures.  Also, it cannot be concluded from the record presented 
          that the conditions, albeit related, were identical.  Moreover, it 
          is unlikely that further processing five years after the fact would 
          resolve these years old issues.  

          It is also noted that Division records also indicate that this rent 
          stabilized tenant has had the benefit of a rent reduction in other 
          decreased services proceedings during a substantial portion of the 
          interim and that as stabilized tenant, he may not benefit from 
          multiple stabilization rent reductions where two or more rent 
          reduction orders overlap.  Additionally, the harassment proceedings 
          under 19168HL were closed, without a finding of harassment.

          Concerning the lead paint condition alleged, the Commissioner notes 






          DF210301RT

          that the condition does not relate back to the conditions cited as 
          the basis for the rent reduction and therefore should not be 
          considered in the owner's application for rent restoration.  It is 
          further noted that the Services Unit of the DHCR SCORE Bureau is 
          not able to ascertain if lead paint conditions exist in the first 
          instance, or whether they are thereafter eliminated.  The City 
          Health Department and the City Department of Housing Preservation 
          and Development (HPD) have the staff with the required expertise 
          and facilities to ascertain the same.

          This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to 
          file a complaint for current services decreases, as the facts may 
          warrant.


          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 Rent Administrator's rent restoration order be affirmed, 
          in accordance with the above.
                   


          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