ED620245RO

                                  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.: ED620245RO
                                                  
          PETER KREATSOULAS                       RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DA620669S
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On April 23, 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 6B located at 3214 Kingsbridge Ave., 
          Bronx, N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a rent reduction for failure 
          to maintain required services.  

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

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on February 15, 1989 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services and  
          alleged that the owner had refused to paint the apartment, that the 
          toilet is defective and that there is low water pressure in the 
          bathroom.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on March 28, 
          1989 and stated that all repairs had been made and that the 
          apartment was painted before the complaint was filed.  The owner 
          attached an invoice for the alleged painting of the apartment on 
          January 27, 1989 as well as an affidavit from the superintendent, 
          which was offered to prove that the other conditions were repaired.
           
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on March 6, 1990 and 
          revealed that the northwest bedroom ceiling and bathroom ceiling 
          were peeling paint and plaster. The inspector also reported that 
          there was no evidence of a defective toilet and no evidence of low 
          water pressure in the bathroom.













          ED620245RO


               The Administrator issued an order on March 23, 1990 wherein a 
          rent reduction of an amount equal to the most recent guideline 
          adjustment was ordered based on the report of the inspector.  On 
          July 23, 1992 the Administrator issued an amended order wherein the 
          order was modified to reflect the fact that the tenant was rent 
          controlled.  The Administrator ordered a $10.00 per month rent 
          reduction effective April 1, 1990, based on the report of the 
          inspector. The original order was affirmed in all other respects.

               On appeal the owner provides a copy of the Administrator's 
          original order and states that the order is wrong because the 
          tenant is rent controlled.  The owner also states that the roof had 
          been vandalized, that this vandalism caused leaks which resulted in 
          the peeling paint and plaster in the bedroom and bathroom and that 
          the conditions were repaired.  The owner attaches documentation to 
          the petition in the form of a letter and an affidavit from a 
          waterproofing company regarding repairs made to the roof on April 
          16, 1990, the same invoice for painting on January 27, 1989 that 
          was submitted below, an affidavit attesting to the fact that the 
          apartment was painted again on April 20, 1990 and a response filed 
          by the tenant on October 26, 1989 to the owner's application for a 
          rent increase based on the installation of major capital 
          improvements wherein the tenant objected to the application.  The 
          petition was served on the tenant on June 11, 1990.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               With regard to the owner's statement that the subject tenant 
          is rent controlled, the Commissioner notes that the issuance of the 
          amended order, on July 23, 1992, corrected the defect in the 
          original rent reduction order issued by the Administrator.

               With regard to the balance of the owner's petition, the owner 
          states that he inspected the roof and made repairs after the tenant 
          notified him that the DHCR inspector was present, investigating the 
          complaint.  However, the owner was served with the complaint and 
          filed an answer March 28, 1989.  It is clear that the owner was on 
          notice of the conditions and the need to correct them.  Therefore, 
          the alleged repairs done after the original order was issued on 
          March 23, 1990 cannot be considered by the Commissioner in 
          determining whether the order was correctly issued based on the 
          record at the time of issuance.

               Pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations the 
          Administrator may reduce the rent based on a finding of decreased 
          services.  Repairs and maintenance are included within the 
          definition of required services.  The Commissioner finds that the 
          Administrator based this determination on the entire record 
          including the results of the on-site physical inspection described 
          above.  The order here under review is affirmed, as amended.






          ED620245RO


               The Commissioner notes that the owner applied for and was 
          granted rent restoration in an order bearing Docket No GC620027OR.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City 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, affirmed.

          ISSUED:



                                                                             
                                             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