DOCKET NO. EK 510036 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.: EK 510367 RO

               Frank Skolnick                     DISTRICT RENT 
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET    
                    
                                                  NO.: DG 510630 S
                                                  
                                                  PREMISES: 265 Cabrini 
                                                  Blvd., #2B New York, NY.


                              PETITIONER
          -------------------------------------X
                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          The above-named owner refiled a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing 
          accommodations relating to the above described docket number.

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

          On July 19, 1989, the tenant commenced the proceeding below by 
          filing a complaint of decrease in services.  The complained of 
          conditions were as follows: no screens had been provided for the 
          new windows; no access to the roof due to the door being locked; 
          no access to the backyard due to the owner keeping three large 
          german shepherds there; the apartment had been painted since the 
          tenant moved in during July 1985, and as a result the paint was 
          peeling and the  wall was duty; the bedroom floor was  dry, 
          splintered and discolored due to the superintendent removing the 
          carpet that had been there while the previous tenant resided 
          there; the superintendent had removed all greenery from view on 
          the tenant's side of the building; the kitchen tiles were stained 
          and had wheelmarks from previous tenant used it as a bedroom; the 
          refrigerator was not working effectively; hot water and water 
          pressure were inadequate; the heat could not be controlled by the 














          DOCKET NO. EK 510036 RO



          tenant, and, irrespective  the outside temperature the heat would 
          remain off; a gate was to be installed on the fire escape but the 
          owner failed to complete the task; damage to the window sills 
          resulting from the installation of new windows.

          On August 21, 1989, the owner was served with the tenant's 
          complaint and was afforded an opportunity to review it and 
          comment thereupon.

          In his answer of August 31, 1989, the owner stated the following: 
          screens had been installed; an approved lock had been installed 
          on the roof for security reasons; the greenery had been removed 
          for safety reasons in that the concrete was cracking; the tenant 
          lived on the second floor and the greenery had nothing to do with 
          her apartment; the tenant never notified the owner regarding the 
          refrigerator or the necessing of a paint job; the bedroom floor 
          was in good condition and was in the same condition as when the 
          tenant moved in during 1985; the kitchen tiles were installed by 
          the prior tenant and were in good condition; a plumber had made 
          repairs to restore hot water; water pressure had been restored; 
          the heat timer had been repaired; the window sills would be 
          repaired; it was the tenant's responsibility to have an approved 
          window gate installed on her fire escape window, not the 
          landlords.

          On May 8, 1990, an inspection of the subject premises was 
          conducted by a DHCR inspector.  The inspection reported stated 
          the following: no screens on the bedroom window, one hallway 
          window, one kitchen window and the left window in the living 
          room; the roof door was kept locked with a puck bar emergency 
          alarm box which could be opened but would activate the alarm; the 
          backyard was in good condition and inspected after dogs were 
          removed ; the livingroom wall was cracked in one area; the 
          hallway ceiling was peeling paint and plaster; the bedroom wall 
          had a hole next to the window; the bathroom ceiling was cracked 
          an slightly bulged; observation of the bedroom floor disclosed 
          that one side was lighter than the other; the bedroom closet door 
          saddle was broken; a couple of the kitchen floor tiles were 
          stained and scratched; the refrigerator made a slight humming 
          noise but there was no evidence of any other defects; the water 
          pressure was adequate; the water temperature was 130oF in the 
          kitchen an bathroom.

          On July 27, 1990, the Administrator issued an order directing 
          restoration of services and a reduction of the stabilization 
          rent.










          DOCKET NO. EK 510036 RO

          In his Petition for Administrative Review, the owner states that 
          all repairs have been done.

          In the tenant's answer to the petition, the tenant states, in 
          substance, that not all repairs have been performed.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that the petition should be denied.

          The owner's petition does not make clear whether it is the 
          owner's contention that repairs had been made before the 
          apartment was inspected or before the order was issued or whether 
          the contention is that repairs were made following the issuance 
          of the Administrator's order.  If it is the former, then the 
          owner's allegation is belied by the report of the agency 
          inspector.  If it is the latter, then the Administrator's order 
          reducing the rent was correct when issued, and this order is 
          issued without prejudice to the owner filing an application for 
          the restoration of rent.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with 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:




                                                                           
                                                  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