DG510012RO
                                  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.:
                                                       DG510012RO
                  
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                  MRS REALTY COMPANY,                  DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CE510644S

                                                       SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                       621 West 172nd Street
                                   PETITIONER          Apt. 55, New York, NY
          ----------------------------------x     



            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative 
          Review (PAR) of an order issued on June 22, 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 3, 1988, by filing a 
          complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
          services in the subject apartment.

          In answer, the owner asserted in substance that repairs were done. 

          On June 7, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was con- 
          ducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) staff 
          member who confirmed the existence of the following defective 
          conditions:  

               1.  the right front burner in the stove is defective;
               2.  evidence of roach and mice infestation in the kitchen;
               3.  the foyer light fixture is detached from the ceiling;
               4.  bathroom and kitchen ceramic tiles are in need of 
                   repair; and












          DG510012RO




               5.  the basin in the bathroom is loose and not secured to
                   the wall.

          By an order dated June 22, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was 
          done and furthermore, that the tenant was already granted a $900.00 
          rent abatement in a non-payment proceeding which was before the 
          Housing Court and that they were therefore being penalized twice 
          for the same offense.

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

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
          authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, 
          where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required 
          services.  The owner's petition does not establish any basis to 
          modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the 
          June 7, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of defective 
          conditions, warranting a rent reduction.

          The Commissioner notes that although the owner submitted copies of 
          work orders with this petition, each of the submitted work orders 
          predates the DHCR physical inspection by at least eight months and 
          therefore do not in any way refute the findings of the inspection.  
          In any event, all of these work orders were submitted for the first 
          time with this petition and are therefore beyond the scope of 
          review, which is limited to the issues and evidence which had 
          originally been before the Administrator.

          The Commissioner further notes that it is true that if a rent 
          reduction order issued by DHCR and a court ordered rent abatement 
          reduce a tenant's rent for the same period of time for identical 
          conditions, the tenant may not collect twice.

          However, in the copy of the stipulation entered into in Housing 
          Court on January 25, 1989 (Index No. 88194/88), which was submitted 
          with this petition, there is no reference made as to what 
          conditions or what time period are covered by the rent abatement.  
          In another stipulation under the same docket number, dated August 
          8, 1988, which the owner also submitted with this petition, the 
          owner agreed to inspect and repair, if necessary, three specified 











          DG510012RO


          conditions in the subject apartment.  Only one of these items 
          listed in the court stipulation, the defective kitchen stove, is 
          also covered by the Administrator's rent reduction order.  There- 
          fore, of the five specified conditions which were the basis for the 
          DHCR rent reduction order, only one, the stove, is mentioned in the 
          court papers submitted by the owner.

          The Commissioner therefore finds that the evidence in the record 
          does not support the owner's contention that the rent reduction 
          order and the court abatement cover the same conditions for the 
          same period of time.  Therefore, the tenant is not benefiting twice 
          from the same conditions.  The Commissioner also notes for the 
          record that the $900.00 amount specified by the owner in the 
          petition includes $150.00 in costs so that the true amount of the 
          rent abatement awarded to the tenant, as set forth in the court 
          stipulation, is actually only $750.00.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's determina- 
          tion.

          The rent will be restored only when an owner's application to 
          restore the rent is filed and granted.  The owner is advised to 
          file such an application if the facts so warrant.

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


          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, denied, and 
          that the 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