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.:DG110305RO     
                                                        
          Hen Yam Lee Corp.,                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:CF110404S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      36-07 Steinway Street
                                                      Apt. 4E
                                                      Long Island City, NY 
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
              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 
            frames." 

            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, 
            DG110305RO


            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 
            been repaired.

            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.




            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