DHCR Decisions        Adm. Rev. Docket No.: EB 210305-RO                                 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.: EB 210305-RO                                            :               MARTIN KIRZNER,                   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S                                               DOCKET NO.: CL 230050-B                                PETITIONER    :        ------------------------------------X                                               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW        On December 26,  1989,  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  a        Petition for  Administrative  Review  against  an  order  issued  on        November 27, 1989, by the Rent  Administrator  of  the  Gertz  Plaza        District Rent Office concerning the housing accommodations known  as        9302 Kings Highway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment No. E, wherein the        Administrator reduced the tenant's rent based  on  a  finding  of  a        building-wide reduction of services.        On February 21, 1990 the Commissioner rejected the owner's  PAR  for        procedural reasons without prejudice to refile properly in a  timely        manner.  The owner prefected the appeal on February 24, 1990.        The  issue  in  this  proceeding  is  whether  the   Administrator's        determination was proper.        The tenant commenced these proceedings on December 1, 1988 by filing        a complaint alleging a decrease in various services.   Specifically,        the tenant complained that the elevator failed to work periodically;        that his stove needed to be replaced; that the owner had refused  to        repair leak damage to his bathroom; that the ceiling and walls  were        cracked; that the apartment door need to be  repaired  or  replaced;        that the apartment required  painting;  and  that  there  was  water        seepage when it rained.        On January 17, 1989, the owner responded that the  elevator  was  in        service and that maintenance problems are addressed promptly by  its        elevator contractor; that the tenant's stove  was  replaced  with  a        used stove in good condition; that leaks were repaired; that  a  new        door had been ordered  for  the  tenant's  apartment  and  would  be        installed  upon  delivery;  that  the  bathroom  repairs  had   been        scheduled; and that the tenant should contact the owner to  schedule        an appointment to paint the apartment.        A inspection  was  conducted  on  October  10,  1989  to  check  the        building-wide conditions reported.  The inspector confirmed that the        bulkhead and second floor ceiling and  walls  and  that  the  third,        fifth and sixth floor ceilings had peeling paint and  plaster.   The        inspector also reported that building door lock and elevator were in        good working order.        The Administrator's orders entertained only t e  tenant's  building-        wide  complaint  and  did  not  address  the  individual   apartment        Adm. Rev. Docket No.: EB 210305-RO        complaints.  Based on the building-wide service reductions  reported        by the inspector, the Administrator granted the tenant's request for        a rent reduction.  As the rent regulated status of the subject  unit        was not known, the tenant was advised to abide by the portion of the        order (Rent Control Law or Rent Stabilization Law) applicable to his        status.        In the petition, the owner requests that the  Administrator's  order        be reversed on the ground that it was  not  aware  of  the  tenant's        complaint about the public areas because the tenant's  language  was        not coherent.  As evidence of its good faith, the owner  points  out        that it corrected the tenant's individual  apartment  complaint  and        that the owner's  answer  below  as  silent  as  to  the  conditions        providing the basis for the rent reductions.        After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion  that        the petition should be denied.        The tenant complained below of water seepage into the building  when        there was rain.  Peeling paint and plaster is a  foreseeable  and  a        direct consequence of water seepage, whether from  exterior  sources        such as rain, or from an interior source  such  as  plumbing  leaks.        The tenant's complaint gave adequate notice that a problem  existed.        The owner's silence as to the natural consequences of the conditions        reported, did not excuse the owner from  addressing  the  condition,        or, at a minimum, to seek clarification from the tenant or from  the        Division.  In addition, the owner at PAR does not deny the existence        of the condition and does not address whether the problem  has  been        corrected.          For all these reasons the rent reduction was warranted.        THEREFORE,  in  accordance  with   the   provision   of   the   Rent        Stabilization Law and Code, Chapter 403 of the  Law  and  1983,  and        Chapter 403 of the Law of 1983, and Chapter 102 of the Laws of 1984,        it is        ORDERED, that this owner's petition be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,        denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby        is, affirmed.        ISSUED:                                                                                                              ELLIOT SANDER                                        Deputy Commissioner