EC 510075 RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EC 510075-RO 
            JAMES WOODRING,                      DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.: DA 510285-S

                                                 72-74 Vermilyea Ave., Apt. 1D
                                PETITIONER       New York, N.Y.

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued 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 the proceeding below by  filing  a  complaint
          asserting that the owner had failed to maintain  certain  services
          on the subject premises.  Amongst the complained of conditions: an 
          unsafe front door which was unlocked, holes in most of the  walls,
          mice and roach infestation.

          In his answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth  in  the
          tenant's complaint or otherwise asserted that all required repairs 
          had been or would be completed.

          Thereafter an inspection of the subject premises was conducted  by
          a D.H.C.R. inspector.  The inspector stated  in  his  report  that
          there was no evidence of any defects to the entrance or  vestibule
          door.  The inspector went on to  state  in  his  report  that  the
          apartment door and frame were replaced, but the  frame  had  gaps.
          In addition, the inspector stated in his report that  the  subject
          premises had live roaches, a hole in the kitchen,  cracks  in  the
          hallway and bathroom walls,  peeling  paint  and  plaster  on  the
          bathroom ceiling and peeling paint on the master bedroom wall.

          The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services  and
          further ordered, a reduction of the stabilization rent.

          In the petition, the owner requests that the Rent  Administrator's
          order be reversed.   The  owner  states,  in  substance,  that  an
          exterminator is at the building every month and the inspectorial

          EC 510075 RO

          finding of gaps in the apartment door frame was not  part  of  the
          tenant's complaint.  The owner also states, in substance, that the 
          subject apartment was painted after the complaint was  filed,  and
          the hole, cracks, peeling paint and plaster found in various rooms 
          of the subject apartment were de minimus when  compared  with  the
          other items in the complaint.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that  the  petition  should  be

          The owner's contention regarding extermination services are belied 
          by the inspection report below,  which  stated  that  the  subject
          premises had live roaches.

          The owner's contention regarding the gaps in  the  apartment  door
          frame is without merit.  There is a logical connection between the 
          complaint of an unsafe front door and gaps in the door frame.  The 
          complaint, and the inspectorial finding that the  door  and  frame
          had been replaced, and that the frame  had  gaps  imply  that  the
          owner did not fulfill his  obligation  to  perform  repairs  in  a
          workmanlike manner.

          The owner's contentions regarding the  hole,  cracks  and  peeling
          paint and plaster found in various rooms of the  subject  premises
          are also without merit.  The inspection report  below  establishes
          that  none  of  the  defective  conditions  found  upon   physical
          inspection were de minimus.  In  addition,  the  owner's  petition
          does not make clear whether it is the owner's contention that  the
          apartment was painted before the apartment was inspected or before 
          the order was issued,  or  whether  the  contention  is  that  the
          apartment  was  painted  following  the  issuance  of   the   Rent
          Administrator's order.  If it is  the  former,  then  the  owner's
          allegation is belied by the report of the agency inspector.  If it 
          is the latter, then the Rent Administrator's  order  reducing  the
          rent was correct when issued.

          Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the  owner  has  offered
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's order, and 
          it should be affirmed.

          This order is issued without prejudice to  the  owner's  right  to
          file an  application  for  a  restoration  of  rent,  based  on  a
          restoration of services, if the facts so warrant.

          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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby  is,

                                          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