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

          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.: EE410303RO

               Neustadter Cohen, Goldberg
               c/o Alexander Brett, Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.: DD410674S


          On May 24, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 19, 
          1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 44 West 62nd Street, Apt. 26E, New York, 
          N.Y., wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent 
          was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          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.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On April 5, 1989, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain sundry services throughout the subject 

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on October 24, 1989, 
          alleging that despite the tenant's assertions, there are no service 
          deficiencies in the subject apartment and that despite its timely 
          attempts to make repairs, the tenant has been extremely 
          uncooperative in providing access to its workmen; always cancelling 
          appointments and harassing the workmen.


          A DHCR inspection conducted on April 2, 1990, revealed that 
          although a number of services were restored by the owner, the 
          following services were not being maintained:

               1.   The floor tiles are loose in several places 
                    throughout apartment.

               2.   Kitchen ventilation not working.

               3.   Hallway baseboard loose.

               4.   Kitchen light fixture globe missing.

               5.   Bathroom sink basin cracked.

               6.   On the side next to tub vanity wallpaper is falling off.

               7.   Hallway closet shelf is loose, wall support is shaky.

               8.   Living room window part of frame is loose.

               9.   Kitchen lower oven door does not close properly, heat 
                    escapes and the gasket on the inside of the door is 
                    broken and paint is missing.

              10.   Kitchen upper oven gasket broken and parts missing, oven 
                    door flies open after (18) to (20) minutes of the oven 
                    having been turned on.

              11.   Smoke alarm not working.

              12.   Front door alarm does not function.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenant has, over a course of eight months, obstructed it from 
          inspecting and correcting complained of service conditions and has 
          denied it access to the subject apartment.    

          The petition was served on the tenant on June 21, 1990, and on the 
          same day the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that  
          access was not denied to the owner at any time without reasonable 
          basis.  The tenant further alleged that the only time access was 
          denied was during periods of serious illness.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of Rent Stabilization Code, a tenant 
          may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) 


          for 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.

          Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include 
          repairs and maintenance.

          The Commissioner notes that the access issue is one that permeates 
          the entire proceeding and that the evidence in the file fails to 
          corroborate the owner's assertions below and on appeal that it was 
          deprived of access to the subject apartment.

          The record under review shows that the DHCR inspector gained access 
          to the subject apartment on March 20, 1990 and April 2, 1990 
          without tenant interference.

          The DHCR inspector determined that although some services were not 
          being maintained, various repairs had been completed, as of April 
          2, 1990.

          On this basis, the Commissioner finds that access was previously 
          achieved; thus belying the owner's assertion that the tenant 
          constantly deprived its workers of access to the subject apartment.

          The Commissioner takes note of letter copies in the file from M. J. 
          Raynes Inc., MJR Development Corp., and Soly Baredes M.D., which 
          purport to show the owner's willingness to make repairs or the 
          tenant's unwillingness to furnish access due to medical necessity.  
          The Commissioner finds, however, that these letters are 
          respectively dated January 5, 1988 and January 18, 1988, which 
          predates the filing of the complaint on April 4, 1989.  
          Accordingly, these letters have no evidentiary value in this 

          The inspector's report clearly showed the existence of twelve (12) 
          service deficiencies which the owner failed to address and on this 
          basis, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered 
          insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 

          The Commissioner further finds, that the Administrator properly 
          based his determination on the entire record, including the results 
          of the on-site physical inspection conducted on April 2, 1990, and 
          that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator 
          was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to maintain services.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          order and opinion.


          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code,

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


                                             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