DF410171RO



                                  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
          APPEAL OF                                  DOCKET NO.: DF410171RO  
                            
          268 WEST 12TH STREET OWNERS' CORP.,                                
                                                     RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                     DOCKET NO.: CC410568S   
                                   PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------x

          ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On June 26, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 22, 1989, 
          by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations 
          known as 270 West 12th Street, Apt.#2B, New York, N.Y., wherein the 
          Administrator determined that a reduction in rent was warranted 
          based upon a reduction in services.
            
          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          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.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          reduced the rent of the subject apartment.

          On March 8, 1988, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain certain services in the subject apartment.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging, in pertinent 
          part, that the tenant usually did not provide access to its 
          maintenance workers to perform the needed repairs but that access 
          was finally provided and that all repairs had been made.

          A DHCR no-access inspection conducted on May 2, 1989, revealed that 
          although certain service deficiencies had been corrected, other 
          deficiencies were not corrected.  More specifically, the inspector 
          found the following unresolved service items:           














          DF410171RO




                    1.   Defective front window chain.

                    2.   Defective living room light fixture.

                    3.   Defective bathroom floor.

                    4.   Defective bathroom wall.

                    5.   Living room light fixture wires were exposed.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenant was either refusing or delaying access to the subject 
          apartment and that this prevented the owner from correcting all 
          service deficiencies. 

          The petition was served on the tenant on September 18, 1989.

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

          The Commissioner has considered the owner's argument that access to 
          the subject apartment was delayed or denied but rejects this 
          argument.  The file shows clearly that the owner's employees gained 
          access to the subject apartment and completed some repairs in a 
          workmanlike manner.  The owner's supplementary answer, dated 
          November 4, 1988, clearly admits this fact.

          Moreover, the owner had almost thirteen (13) months from service of 
          the tenant's complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's 
          order to investigate the tenant's complaint and to make all 
          necessary repairs, but had failed to do so.

          Additionally, the record shows that a "no access" inspection was 
          conducted on May 2, 1989, but that the owner was not present.  The 
          tenant was represented by Mr. C. Oliver who provided access to the 
          DHCR inspector.

          Accordingly, the Rent Administrator's order based on the inspection 
          was correct.

          The automatic stay of retroactive rent abatement that resulted by 
          the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this order 
          and opinion.











          DF410171RO

          Upon a restoration of services, the owner may separately apply for 
          rent restoration.

          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 order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed.

          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