EE 810218 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.:  EE 810218 RO

          2 NORTH STREET CORPORATION, OWNER,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.: MDG 810225-S
                                                  TENANT:  LINA DI MAGGIO
                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On May 11, 1990, the above-named petitioner filed a Petition  for
          Administrative Review against an order issued on April  10,  1990
          by the Rent Administrator, 55 Church Street,  White  Plains,  New
          York concerning  the  housing  accommodation  known  as  2  North
          Street,  Mount  Vernon,  New  York,  Apartment  B-1  wherein  the
          Administrator determined  that  there  had  been  a  decrease  in
          services and reduced the rent to the level in effect prior to the 
          last guideline rent increase.

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

          The tenant initiated this proceeding on July 24, 1989 by filing a 
          complaint of a decrease in services, alleging numerous  defective
          conditions.  The tenant requested a rent reduction.

          A copy of the complaint was served on the owner.

          In answer to the complaint, the owner indicated  that  there  had
          been no decrease in services.

          The tenant, in reply, contradicted the owner's response.

          On March 14, 1990, a physical inspection of the subject  premises
          was conducted by a staff member of the Division  of  Housing  and
          Community Renewal (DHCR).  The inspector  reported,  among  other
          things, that:

               1)   the walls of the entire  apartment  had  cracks
                    and were soiled;

               2)   there were  loose  and  missing  tiles  in  the
                    bathroom;

               3)   an extreme hazard  was  presented  by  cabinets
                    sinking on one wall; and






          EE 810218 RO

               4)   the kitchen floor was warped.

          Based on the foregoing inspection, the  Administrator  determined
          that there had been a decrease in services and reduced  the  rent
          to  the  level  in  effect  prior  to  the  last  rent  guideline
          adjustment.

          In the appeal, the  owner  contends  that  the  Division  has  no
          jurisdiction because the tenant is a Section 8 Tenant.  The owner 
          states that the amount of the reduction is  ambiguous  since  the
          rent paid is determined by HUD and not by rent guidelines.

          The owner also states that all repair work has been completed.

          In answer to the petition, the tenant asserts that only  some  of
          the necessary repair work has been completed.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition  should  be
          denied.

          The purpose of an appeal is to correct any error of law  or  fact
          in the Administrator's order.  The Commissioner  notes  that  the
          petitioner herein did not  raise  the  issue  of  the  Section  8
          subsidy for consideration  in  the  proceeding  before  the  Rent
          Administrator.  Therefore, it is inappropriate to  consider  this
          issue de novo in this appeal.  However,  the  Commissioner  notes
          that the receipt of a Section 8 subsidy does not deprive a tenant 
          of the protection of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.

          With respect to the ordered  guideline  decrease  this  reduction
          should be applied proportionately to that  portion  of  the  rent
          paid by the tenant.

          Pursuant to Section 2503.4, a tenant may apply for a reduction of 
          the legal regulated rent and the Division  may  reduce  the  rent
          where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain services. 
          A physical inspection in the case confirmed  that  services  were
          not being maintained.  Accordingly, the Commissioner  finds  that
          the Administrator properly reduced the rent.

          If the facts so warrant, the owner may apply for a restoration of 
          the rent.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act 
          and the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

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



          ISSUED:
                                                  ------------------------
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  Deputy Commissioner
           
             






          EE 810218 RO
                                          
    

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