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.: EA410034RO
Sessler and Schacht,
RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: CI410603S
PETITIONER
SUBJECT PREMISES:
229 W. 71st. St.
Apt. 2F
NY, NY
----------------------------------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 November 29, 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 September 20, 1988 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner denied the allegations in the complaint and
otherwise asserted that repairs were performed.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the apartment was conducted on
November 15, 1989 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed that there was
roach infestation and the peephole cover was missing.
By an order dated November 29, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized
rent.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that the tenant initially refused access; that an
exterminator took care of the roach infestation; and that it never
knew about the missing peephole cover.
In answer, the tenant denied the allegations in the petition and
asserted in substance that the defective conditions continue to
remain.
EA410034RO
After careful consideration, 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 for modifying or
revoking the Administrator's order which determined that the owner
was not maintaining required services based on the results of the
November 15, 1989 on-site inspection which confirmed the existence
of defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The owner may file a rent restoration 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,
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:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Deputy Commissioner
|
