DK110031RO
                                  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.:
                                                       DK110031RO
              
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                   ERICK LIEBENSTEIN,                  DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CH110301S             

                                                       PREMISES: 
                                                       35-44 95 St., Apt. 1A
                                   PETITIONER          Jackson Heights, 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 October 13, 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 15, 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 all required 
repairs were done.  Copies of work orders and repair slips, 
together with a copy of a court stipulation where the owner agreed 
to make certain repairs, were attached.

On September 28, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was 
conducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) 
staff member who confirmed the existence of defective conditions.

By an order dated October 13, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.




In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the required 








          DK110031RO

          repairs had been done as he had demonstrated in his answer below, 
          that he never received any further notice of continuing repair 
          problems after the tenant's initial complaint and so did not have 
          notice that any additional repairs were needed, that he did not 
          receive any notice concerning the DHCR physical inspection, and 
          finally, that the tenant had withdrawn her complaint.

          DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant, who answered, 
          denying the owner's contentions and stating that not all of the 
          required repairs were made.

          After 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 
          September 28, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of 
          defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.

          The Commissioner notes that all of the documents submitted by the 
          owner with his answer below, including the work orders and repair 
          slips, were dated prior to the date the tenant filed her service 
          complaint and therefore do not in any way refute the findings of 
          the DHCR physical inspection.  Furthermore, the very fact that the 
          tenant filed her complaint after this work was purportedly done put 
          the owner on notice that the tenant was having continuing repair 
          problems.  The owner had ample time to rectify these conditions 
          after receiving notice of the continuing deficiencies.  Yet the 
          inspection reveals that the defective conditions were not remedied.

          Concerning the petitioner-owner's argument that the Administrator 
          failed to give it notice of the inspection or the results, the 
          Commissioner finds that due process does not require that the owner 
          be informed that inspections are to take place or that it be sent 
          copies of the reports with an opportunity to rectify the condition 
          or to respond.  The owner had adequate notice from the tenant's 
          complaint of conditions requiring its attention.  Accordingly, the 
          owner's contention with respect to this issue is without merit.

          Finally, the owner's contention that the tenant had withdrawn the 
          complaint in the proceeding below is also without merit.  A careful 
          review of the record below reveals that subsequent to filing his 
          answer, the owner did submit a copy of a letter from the tenant 
          withdrawing certain complaints.  However, contrary to the owner's 






          claims, the letter submitted does not relate to the service case 
          hereunder review.  The Commissioner notes that this withdrawal 
          letter is dated June 29, 1988, which predates by approximately six 




          DK110031RO

          weeks the date when the tenant filed her complaint, and further- 
          more, specifically states that it relates to Docket Nos. CE110332R 
          and CE110407S, which are two distinct and separate cases from the 
          one which is the subject matter of this proceeding.  Therefore, 
          this letter from the tenant has no bearing on this proceeding.

          Division records indicate that the owner filed an application to 
          restore the rent which was denied on August 15, 1990, under Docket 
          No. DK110022OR.  The owner filed a second rent restoration appli- 
          cation which was originally denied on March 22,1991, under Docket 
          No. EI110038OR.  However, the owner filed an application for 
          reconsideration of this denial, which was granted, after a 
          reinspection, on August 12, 1991, under Docket No. FE110002RK.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          from 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