STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:DG110305RO
Hen Yam Lee Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
36-07 Steinway Street
Long Island City, NY
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND
REVOKING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on July 20, 1989 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
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 tenant commenced this proceeding on June 21, 1988 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment. In relevant part, the tenant
stated that the windows were "very old and broken," and had "no
In answer, the owner denied the allegations and otherwise asserted
that all repairs were performed on July 9, 1988.
Thereafter, on July 10, 1989, a physical inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the
window moldings were not painted; and that the bedroom window
molding was not caulked properly. The inspector also noted that new
windows were installed throughout the apartment; that there was no
evidence of a damaged kitchen floor, the floor was covered with
linoleum; and that the bedroom walls had no peeling paint and
plaster, the walls were properly painted.
By an order dated July 20, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that what the DHCR
inspector witnessed on July 10, 1989 was a major capital improvement
in progress, not a decrease in services, which began on June 28,
1989. Attached to the petition was a copy of a statement from the
window company, asserting inter alia that the window defects in the
subject apartment were an oversight; that repairs were going on at
the time of inspection; and that all windows defects have already
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted and that the Administrator's order
should be revoked.
The evidence of record as a whole establishes that the tenant's
complaint was substantially addressed by the owner. The tenant
originally complained of "very old and broken" windows which had "no
frames." The July 10, 1989 physical inspection of the subject
apartment revealed that repairs were completed, including the
installation of new windows throughout the apartment.
The Commissioner notes that the findings that the window moldings
were not painted and that the bedroom window molding was not caulked
properly are new conditions, not originally complained of by the
tenant. Additionally, the installation of new windows was part of an
on-going major capital improvement wherein the old windows cited in
the tenant's complaint were completely replaced.
The Commissioner further notes that the owner's rent restoration
application (DG110134OR) was granted on April 10, 1990.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked.
The tenant may pay any arrears in rent arising as a result of this
Order and Opinion in twelve equal monthly installments.
Lula M. Anderson