EB410206RO;  EE410062RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:             
                                                  EB410206RO;  EE410062RO;

                                                  DOCKET NO.:

                           ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, IN PART

          The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for admin- 
          istrative review (PAR) of an order issued on January 3, 1990 
          concerning the housing accommodations known as 400 East 54th 
          Street, New York, New York, Apartment 30-D, wherein the Adminis- 
          trator determined the owner's application to restore rent 
          previously reduced per Docket No. L0002648S.

          The owner filed a second timely petition for administrative review 
          of the Rent Administrator's amended order issued on April 6, 1990 
          concerning the subject premises.  The amended order provided that 
          the Agency had no jurisdiction over the asbestos issue raised by 
          the tenant.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered the portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petitions.             

          In the rent reduction order per Docket No. L0002648S dated April 
          11, 1986, the Rent Administrator delineated the conditions 
          requiring repairs:

                    1.   Defective living room and bedroom floors,
                    2.   Defective kitchen and bathroom faucets,
                    3.   Painting and plastering required throughout the 
                         apartment with seepage and leakage in the living
                         room and bedroom and a
                    4.   Refrigerator freezer not operating properly.

          EB410206RO;  EE410062RO

          The owner commenced the proceedings herein under review by filing 
          a rent restoration application.  The owner acknowledged that the 
          tenant provided access for certain repairs, and that as a result 
          the kitchen and bathroom faucets and the refrigerator services had 
          been restored by April 21, 1989.

          However, the owner also contended that the tenant refused to pro- 
          vide access to the owner to repair the floors and walls, refusing 
          the owner's offer to temporarily relocate the tenant to Apartment 
          29-D during the pendency of the apartment-wide repairs.

          In support, the owner submitted a copy of an order by Justice Baer 
          of the Supreme Court, New York County, before whom the Article 78 
          appeal of the rent reduction order was pending, issued on April 19, 
          1989 per Index No. 23461/87.  Justice Baer's order provided, in 
          pertinent part, the following:

               ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Respondent [Tenant] is 
               found to have wilfully refused to provide Petitioner with 
               complete access to Apartment 30-D at the subject premises 
               on or before February 21, 1989, and to temporarily relo- 
               cate to Apartment 29-D at the subject premises at the 
               sole cost and expense of the Petitioner, in contravention 
               of this Court's January 20, 1989 order, and it is further

               ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, by reason of Respondent [Ten- 
               ant's] willful refusal to provide access, the Respondent 
               DHCR is directed to consider, upon the filing of a rent 
               restoration application by the Petitioner with Respondent 
               DHCR, the Petitioner's rent restoration application, most 
               particularly whether the Respondent [Tenant's] rent may 
               be restored to its former level without any rent reduc- 
               tion and without regard to any lack of repair to 
               Respondent [Tenant's] apartment, effective March 1, 1989.

          In an answer, the tenant asserted that, among other things, the 
          used replacement refrigerator was not working properly.  The tenant 
          also asserted that the owner would not agree to observe City Health 
          Department and City Environmental Protection Agency ordinances in 
          repairing and replacing the flooring material found to contain 

          An inspection was conducted on December 8, 1989 by a DHCR 
          inspector.  The inspection results disclosed that the living room 
          and bedroom floors remained defective, that the apartment required 

          EB410206RO;  EE410062RO

          painting and plastering, and that the refrigerator temperature was 
          inadequate.  The inspection report reflected that the bathroom and 
          kitchen faucet conditions had been corrected.

          On January 3, 1990, the Rent Administrator issued an order that 
          denied the owner's rent restoration application based on the 
          results of the inspection.  The Rent Administrator issued an 
          amended order on April 6, 1990, noting that "the agency has no 
          jurisdiction over the asbestos issue".  The parties were requested 
          to advise the DHCR whether the issue has been resolved, and the 
          owner was required to "submit supporting evidence when filing a new 
          application for rent restoration".

          In the petition for administrative review of the January 3, 1990 
          order, the owner reiterates the argument below that the Rent 
          Administrator consider the owner's lack of access claims and the 
          Supreme Court's findings that the subject tenant wilfully refused 
          the owner access to cure the flooring, plastering and painting 

          Concerning the refrigerator defects, the owner asserts that it will 
          promptly take whatever action is necessary to cure the condition.  
          The owner also argues the order denying rent restoration was 
          defective because it lacked specificity.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petitions should be granted, in part.

          The Commissioner concurs that the order of the Court finding that 
          the tenant had wilfully refused the owner access to cure the 
          flooring, painting, and plastering conditions was sufficient reason 
          to eliminate the conditions as predicates for denying the owner's 
          rent restoration application.

          However, the Rent Administrator properly concluded, based on the 
          results of an inspection that found that the refrigerator tempera- 
          ture was inadequate, that the owner was not entitled to a rent 
          restoration.  The owner's argument that the Rent Administrator's 
          order was defective because it did not detail the inspector's
          methodology  and observations is without merit.  Neither due 
          process nor DHCR practice requires that the Rent Administrator's 
          order set forth the information.  

          The owner also filed a petition for administrative review appealing 
          the Rent Administrator's April 6, 1990 amended order.  In addition 
          to reiterating the arguments above, the owner objects to the impo-
          sition to submit supporting evidence that any asbestos problem in 
          the subject apartment has been remedied when filing a new applica- 

          tion for rent restoration.  In light of the instant order revoking 
          the wall conditions and the floor conditions (which the tenant 

          EB410206RO;  EE410062RO

          asserted were the source of the alleged hazardous asbestos problem) 
          as predicates for denying the owner's rent restoration application, 
          questions arising from the asbestos allegations raised by the 
          tenant have been rendered moot for the purposes of these pro- 

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that the owner's petitions for administrative review 
          should be granted in part, as provided above, to revoke defective 
          floors and walls as predicates for denying the owner's rent 
          restoration application.  It is further

          ORDERED, that the part of the Rent Administrator's order that 
          denied the owner's rent restoration application predicated on a 
          finding of a defective replacement refrigerator be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                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