DJ120107RO
                                  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.: DJ120107RO

                    Allendale Associates,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: CH120074S

                                                       SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                       34-24 82nd Street
                                                       Apt. 1N
                                                       Jackson Heights, N.Y.
                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on September 25, 1989, concerning the 
          above-described housing accommodations.

          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 August 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 the tenant refused 
          to provide access.

          A No Access notice was then sent to the tenant and the owner, 
          advising them of a September 6, 1989 inspection date when the 
          tenant should be ready to provide access to the owner's worker(s) 
          and the owner's workers should be ready to perform the repairs.

          Thereafter, a No Access inspection was conducted on September 6, 
          1989 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of a 
          defective condition consisting of water damage to the ceiling in 
          the foyer linen closet.  The inspector noted that although the 
          tenant was there to provide access, neither the owner nor his 
          representatives were present at the inspection.
          By an order dated September 25, 1989, the Administrator directed 
          the restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.












          DJ120107RO


          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that this service 
          case was a duplicate complaint of Docket No. CK120193S, and 
          furthermore, that the underlying condition did not justify a rent 
          reduction.

          DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant who answered, 
          stating that they had never deducted the first rent reduction 
          amount from their rent.

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

          Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 
          the Administrator may impose a rent reduction when there has been 
          a reduction in essential services.  The owner's petition does not 
          establish any basis to modify or revoke the Administrator's 
          determination based on the September 6, 1989 inspection which 
          confirmed the existence of defective conditions, warranting a rent 
          reduction.

          After a careful review of the two rent reduction orders referred to 
          by the owner in this petition, the Commissioner notes that the two 
          orders are not duplicates of each other and the defective 
          conditions cited in each of the two reduction orders are not the 
          same.  The condition cited as the basis for the rent reduction in 
          the order issued under Docket No. CK120193S is that the bathroom 
          sink is loose from the wall and has shaky legs.  This is clearly 
          not the same as a water damaged linen closet ceiling, which is the 
          basis for the Administrator's rent reduction order hereunder 
          review.  Therefore, the owner's contention is without merit.

          Division records indicate that the owner filed an application to 
          restore the rent which was granted on August 21, 1991, under Docket 
          No. FB120005OR.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations 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