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

     APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: EJ 710126-RO
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: EG 7-1-0069-OR
                           PETITIONER    : 


     On October 11, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for 
     Administrative Review of an order issued on September  10,  1990,  by  the
     Rent Administrator, 50 Clinton Street,  Hempstead,  New  York,  concerning
     housing accommodations known as Apartment No.  4E  at  380  Front  Street,
     Hempstead, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator  determined  that  the
     owner had failed to restore services, and, accordingly, denied the owner's 
     application for restoration of rent.

     The issue in this appeal is whether the  Rent  Administrator's  order  was

     The applicable section  of  the  law  is  Section  2503.4  of  the  Tenant
     Protection Regulations.

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

     This proceeding was commenced by the filing,  on  July  12,  1990,  of  an
     Owner's Application to Restore Rent, in  which  the  owner  stated,  among
     other things, that the owner has restored the services for which the  rent
     reduction order was issued on February  5,  1990,  i.e.  (1)  the  bathtub
     required caulking; (2) the apartment needed painting; (3) there were paint 
     spots on the floor and cabinets; (4) the intercom  was  not  working;  (5)
     there  were  no  security  guards;  (6)  there  was  evidence   of   roach
     infestation; (7) the vents in the kitchen and bathroom  were  not  working
     properly; (8) and the bathroom  and  living  room  air  conditioners  were
     emitting warm air.

     The owner additionally stated  that  the  painting  was  scheduled  to  be
     completed on July 25, 1990, and that the tenant's statement  of  completed
     repairs was attached.  The tenant's sign-off of items 1,3,6,7  and  8  was

     In answer, on July 25, 1990, the tenant stated that she had been unable to 
     take July 25 off from work to have the painting done; that there was still 
     no security guard on the premises; that the paint spots on the floor and 


          DOCKET NUMBER: EJ 710126-RO
     walls remained; and that the intercom was still not working.   The  tenant
     further stressed the need for security protection, including intercom  and

     An inspection was held at the subject apartment on August 22, 1990.   That
     inspection disclosed that the apartment was in need of painting; that  the
     floors had stains from an  earlier  (1988)  painting;  that  the  tenant's
     apartment could not be rung via the intercom; that no security guards were 
     on the premises, i.e., that the conditions for which  the  rent  reduction
     had been ordered had not been corrected.

     By order dated September 10, 1990, under  Docket  No.  EG  710069-OR,  the
     Rent Administrator determined that, based  upon  the  physical  inspection
     that found that services were not restored,  the  owner's  application  to
     restore the rent based on a restoration of services should be denied.

     The owner alleged in its petition (1) that the tenant  denied  access  for
     the painting of the apartment, but as of October 1990 signed  off  on  the
     paint job; (2)  that  the  tenant  never  reported  intercom  problems  to
     management; (3) that security guards were never a provided service.

     The tenant did not file an answer to the petition.

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

     Section 2503.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations provides, in pertinent 
     part, that a tenant may apply to the Division  of  Housing  and  Community
     Renewal (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in 
     effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR  shall
     so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that the owner has 
     failed to maintain required services.

     In the  instant  case,  the  evidence  of  record,  including  a  physical
     inspection conducted on August  22,  1990,  disclosed  that  decreases  in
     service continued to exist, i.e.,  that  the  apartment  was  in  need  of
     painting; that floors had stains from a 1988 paint job; that the  tenant's
     apartment could not be rung via the intercom; and that no security  guards
     were on the premises.

     With regard to the owner's allegation that the tenant  continued  to  deny
     access for painting, but has signed off on the paint job, the Commissioner 
     finds that the owner has failed to document its assertion that the  tenant
     denied access for the paint job; the record contains letters in which  the
     tenant provided the dates on which  she  thought  she  would  be  able  to
     provide access,  thereby  evincing  her  willingness  to  provide  access.
     Furthermore, the owner has submitted no evidence to document the  tenant's
     acceptance of the paint job.

     Concerning  the  owner's  contentions  that  the  tenant  never   reported
     intercom problems to management and that the owner  is  not  obligated  to
     provide security guards, the Commissioner finds that since the  owner  did
     not file a petition for administrative review of the  order  that  reduced
     the rent based, among other things, on  the  owner's  failure  to  provide
     security guards and to provide a working intercom, the owner may not raise 
     these issues in this appeal of the denial of rent restoration.


          DOCKET NUMBER: EJ 710126-RO
     This order is issued without prejudice to  the  owner's  again  filing  an
     application to restore the rent based on a restoration of  services,  when
     all services have been restored.

     THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is

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


                                     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