ED 110328 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.: ED 110328 RO

     SHELLY ESTATES GROUP               DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: CK 110358 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
             AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
                                
      On April 26, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed  a
Petition  for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued March 23, 1990.  The order concerned housing
accommodations  known  as  Apt.  3L  located  at  175-20  Wexford
Terrace, Jamaica, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered  a  rent
reduction for failure to maintain required or essential services.

      The  Administrator  has reviewed the record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing  a Statement
of  Complaint of Decrease in Services on November 21, 1988.   She
stated  that  there  were leaks in the bedroom  and  living  room
closets.   She also stated that the owner was on notice regarding
the  condition  but did nothing other than to paint  and  plaster
over  the  surface  of the leaks.  The tenant  claimed  that  the
painting and plastering was not done in a workmanlike manner  and
that  plaster was continually falling from the ceiling and walls.
The  tenant also complained that the plastic ends of her venetian
blinds  were  broken and that the owner refused to replace  them.
The  tenant annexed to the complaint a letter from the  New  York
City  Department  of Housing Preservation and  Development.   The
letter  stated  that  an  inspection of the  apartment  had  been
conducted  by  the  Department and a violation was  reported  for
falling plaster.  Specifically, the inspector described a need to
repair  defective  plastered surfaces  and  paint  the  bathroom,
closets, and radiator tops.

     The complaint was served on the owner and an opportunity was
given to respond thereto.

      The  owner filed a response on December 22, 1988.  In  that
response it stated that all services were being maintained.   The
owner  stated  that  the  tenant had  filed  numerous  complaints
regarding  services deficiencies in her apartment.  Specifically,
the owner stated:

          1.   The peeling paint and plaster was the subject of a
               prior  rent  reduction (Docket No.  AG  110050  S)
               which  was under appeal with the Division  (Docket
               No. BF110078 RO)
          
          2.   The  worn blinds were the subject of the same rent
               reduction in the order mentioned above
          
          3.   The  complaint of unworkmanlike painting  was  one
               constantly  lodged by the tenant.  The  owner  had
               made  every  effort to attempt to accommodate  the
               tenant, to no avail.
          
      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
apartment.   The  inspections were conducted on  January  31  and
February 23, 1990 and revealed the following:

          1.  Small flakes of paint missing from lower
              living room closet (left side)

The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.  No evidence of water leaks in bedroom and
              living room closets

          2.  No evidence of peeling paint and plaster in
              bedroom and living room

          3.  No evidence of leaks coming through tiles of
              shower into bedroom closet.

On  March 23, 1990 the Administrator issued the order here  under
review and granted a rent reduction effective March 23, 1990.

      On appeal the owner, through counsel, makes three arguments
in seeking reversal of the Administrator's order:

          1.  The Administrator failed to give the owner notice
              of the inspection and also failed to serve the
              owner with a copy of the inspector's report
          
          2.  In light of the "enormous level" of prior pro-
              ceedings involving this tenant, the owner requests
              a hearing to determine the issues raised in the
              petition.

          3.  The minor nature of the services deficiency did
              not warrant a rent reduction.

The  tenant  filed a response to the petition on  June  16,  1990
wherein  she stated, in substance, that the service had not  been
restored and, therefore, that the order here under review  should
be affirmed.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
granted and the order here under review revoked.

     Addressing the owner's arguments in the order presented, the
Commissioner  has  consistently held that due  process  does  not
require  the  owner to be served with a notice of the  inspection
nor  a  copy  of  the  inspector's report.  The  service  of  the
complaint puts the owner on notice of the conditions and the need
for repair thereof.  Since, as the owner itself admits, there has
been  a  lengthy  history of services complaints  involving  this
tenant, it cannot now claim lack of notice.

       Petitioner   requests  a  hearing  due  to  the   numerous
proceedings  which  have  been filed by this  tenant  before  the
Division.   The  granting of a hearing is discretionary  and  the
Commissioner  finds that this proceeding does not  present  facts
sufficient  to warrant the granting of such relief.  The  request
for hearing is denied.

      The  Commissioner finds, however, that a rent reduction  is
not  warranted based on the particular facts of this  case.   The
tenant  complained about leaks in the closets and  the  inspector
specifically  reported  no evidence of  leaks  in  these  closets
indicating  that the conditions complained of had been  repaired.
The existence of small fakes of paint in one small portion of  an
area  that is not generally visible does not constitute a failure
to  maintain services. (Accord ARL 08762-U)  Accordingly, it  was
error for the Administrator to issue the order here under review.
The petition is granted and that order is revoked.

           THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law  and
Code it is,

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,
granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.

ISSUED:


                                                                 JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                   Acting 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