EH 210243-RO

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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  EH 210243-RO                
                 DOBRIVOYE FILIPOVICH,            
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONER      ZDI 210094-OR


          On August 24, 1990, the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed  an
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on July 26, 1990 by 
          the District Rent Administrator (Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New  York)
          concerning the housing accommodations known as  251  Metropolitan
          Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment  7,  wherein  the  Adminis-
          trator denied the owner's application for rent restoration.

          The owner commenced the proceeding below by fili g  its  applica-
          tion to restore the rent for the subject stabilized apartment  in
          September of 1989.  The rent for the apartment had  been  reduced
          (by order issued on December 30, 1988) based on the existence  of
          the following conditions in the apartment:

                    1.   Apartment entrance  door  lock  defective  and
                         missing screws;

                    2.   Inoperative doorbell;

                    3.   Peeling paint on the bathroom ceiling; and

                    4.   Master bedroom a d  kitchen  window  molding/-
                         frames in need of painting.

          The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein,  stated
          (among other things), that the conditions have not been corrected 
          in that (I) the apartment door is dented where the door  lock  is
          located; (II) the door bell from the front of the building to the 
          apartment is missing; (III) the left side window in  the  bedroom
          has been installed in an unworkmanlike manner in that there is  a
          gap between frame and  casing  which  allows  air  seepage.   The
          Administrator also  stated  that  the  apartment  door  lock  was
          working properly, the kitchen window showed no defects,  and  the

          EH 210243-RO
          bathroom ceiling had no evidence of peeling paint and plaster.

          This order was based upon a physical inspection  of  the  subject
          premises conducted by this Division on June 14, 1990.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner contends, in substance, that  (A)
          of the three defective conditions listed in  the  Administrator's
          order, the first and the third were not the basis  for  the  rent
          decrease order; (B) new door bells  had  been  installed  at  the
          premises, and any damages  were  caused  by  the  tenant;  (C)  a
          Housing Court Judge had previously determined  that  the  subject
          tenant damages the apartment after repairs are done by t e  land-
          lord; and (D) the subject tenant previously  wanted  to  buy  the
          subject building and, upon his failure to do so,  is  systematic-
          ally  causing  damage  to  his  apartment.   In  support  of  its
          contentions, the owner submitted (among other  documents)  copies
          of statements by its contractors.  A statement dated  August  26,
          1988 asserts that on August 24, 1988 the workman found  that  the
          door bell button of the subject apartment (No. 7)  was  padlocked
          by the tenant, and that the door bell button and buzzer in Apart 
          ment No. 8 also works for Apartment  No.  7.   The  workman  also
          stated that according to the super,  the  tenants  in  these  two
          apartments are father and son and that they arranged the bells to 
          work that way for their  convenience.   In  addition,  the  owner
          submitted documentation (an invoice and a contractor's statement) 
          to show that a bell and  buzzer  were  replaced  in  the  subject
          apartment in May of 1989.

          In response to the owner's petition, the tenant's attorney  filed
          an answer stating, in substance, that (i) the June 14,  1990  in-
          spection confirmed the tenant's  complaints;  (ii)  the  landlord
          never fixed the conditions listed in the Administrator's order or 
          the items for which the rent  decrease  was  granted;  (iii)  the
          tenant has not caused these conditions; (iv) the previous Housing 
          Court decision concerned conditions which had existed in 1988 and 
          not the 1989 conditions at issue in the case; and (iv) the  owner
          was convicted of assaulting the tenant.

          After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record  the
          Commissioner is of the opinion  that  the  administrative  appeal
          should be granted  and  the  Administrator's  order  modified  in
          accordance with this order and opinion.

          The Commissioner notes at the outset that the first and the third 
          conditions listed in the Administrator's order (the dent  in  the
          apartment door and the gap in the bedroom window)  were  not  one
          of the conditions upon which the original rent decrease order was 
          based.  Thus, they cannot form the basis for the  denial  of  the
          owner's rent restoration application.   In  addition,  the  owner
          submitted substantial documentation to show  that  the  bell  and
          buzzer were replaced in the subject apartment  in  May  of  1989.
          Therefore, the record discloses that the owner had  restored  the
          services upon which the rent reduction was based,  and  that  the
          Administrator's order should be modified  to  grant  the  owner's
          application and to restore the rent  for  the  subject  apartment
          effective December 1, 1989 (the first rent payment date following 

          EH 210243-RO
          notice to the tenant of the owner's application).

          On the basis of the entire evidence of  record,  the  Administra-
          tor's order is modified to grant the owner's application  and  to
          restore the rent for the subject apartment effective December  1,

          Any arrears owed by the tenant as a result of this order  may  be
          paid by the tenant to the owner  in  equal  monthly  installments
          over the course of the next twelve months.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable  provisions  of  the
          Rent Stabilization Code and Operational Bulletin 84-1,  it is,

          ORDERED, that this Administrative Appeal be, and the same  hereby
          is, granted and that the Administrator's order be, and  the  same
          hereby is, modified in accordance with this order and opinion.


                                                ELLIOT SANDER
                                                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