EH 210187 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.: EH 210187 RO

  REICO INTERNATIONAL REALTY CO.,       DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: DC 210417 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
                                
      On August 12, 1990 the above named petitioner owner filed a
Petition  for Administrative Review against an order of the  Rent
Administrator issued July 20, 1990.  The order concerned  housing
accommodations  known  as Apt. 14 located at  255  Bergen  Street
Brooklyn, N.Y.  The Administrator ordered a rent reduction  based
on a finding of decreased 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 by filing a Statement
of  Complaint  of Decrease in Services on March  20,  1989.   She
complained of the following services deficiencies:

          1.  Apartment in need of painting.
          2.  Roach and rodent infestation.
          3.  Inadequate heat/hot water.
          4.  Defective radiator.
          5.  Kitchen plumbing leaks.
          6.  Kitchen ceiling leaks.
          7.  Defective bedroom radiator.
          
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded an
opportunity  to  respond.  On April 19, 1989 the  owner  filed  a
response wherein it stated that repairs were made and supplied  a
copy  of  the tenant's signature on a document which stated  that
the washers in the kitchen sink had been replaced and all
violations  corrected.    The Administrator  ordered  a  physical
inspection of the premises.  The inspection was conducted on  May
23, 1990 and revealed the following:

          1.  Peeling paint and plaster throughout apartment and
              entire apartment badly mildewed.

          2.  Evidence of roach infestation in kitchen.
          
The following services were found to be maintained:

          1.  No evidence of mice infestation.
          2.  Heat not required at time of inspection.
          3.  Adequate hot water.
          4.  Adequate water pressure in bathroom and kitchen.
          5.  No evidence of defective radiators.
          6.  No evidence of plumbing leaks in kitchen.
          
On  July  20, 1990 the Administrator issued the order here  under
review  wherein a rent reduction was ordered based on the inspec-
tor's report.

      On appeal the owner states "(T)he tenant refuses access  to
the apartment and refused to pay the rent.  We are willing to  do
any repairs necessary."  The tenant filed a response on September
24,  1990  wherein she stated that repairs had not been made  and
the owner never attempted to gain access to the apartment.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
denied.

      The  owner's  claim of denial of access is raised  for  the
first  time in the petition and is beyond the scope of review  of
administrative appeals which is limited to a review of  facts  or
evidence  before the Administrator.  In fact, in  answer  to  the
complaint  the  owner  claimed that repairs  had  been  made  and
submitted a work order signed by the tenant regarding certain
repairs  that  had been done in the apartment, establishing  that
access  for  this  purpose had been obtained.   The  work  order,
how-ever,  vaguely referred to the correction of all  violations,
and   was   not  sufficient  to  establish  that  the  conditions
specifically cited in the complaint had been corrected.

     The remainder of the petition, which consists of the owner's
statement  that  it  is  ready to do repairs,  does  not  warrant
modi-fication  or revocation of the Administrator's  order.   The
order  was correct and must be affirmed.  The owner may file  for
rent  restoration when services have been restored or  the  owner
can  establish  with  documentary evidence  that  the  tenant  is
refusing access.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to 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, 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