Doc. #EK110320RO
                                  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.: EK110320RO

                                              :     
                  Thomas Gjokaj,                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                              :     DOCKET NO.: EG110131S


                              PETITIONER      :
          ------------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On November 19, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          timely petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued 
          on October 22, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 91-47 88th Road, Woodhaven, N.Y., 
          Apt. 3CA, 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 
          issues raised by the petition.

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

          On July 6, 1990, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain services throughout the subject apartment.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that most of 
          the repairs were corrected and that all other complaints will be 
          looked into.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on September 20, 1990, revealed that:

               1. Bedroom window defective and unable to open and close  
                  adequately on lock.  Screen defective.

               2. Bathroom window defective, large gap between tile wall  
                  and window molding-lock defective.

               3. Livingroom defective window lock.

               4. Kitchen defective window lock needs caulking.

               5. Bathroom sink brown water from hot and cold faucets no  
                  stopper-faucet leaks at base of faucets.

               6. Bathroom sink not secured to wall and leg supports are  






          Doc. #EK110320RO

                  needed.

               7. Rear room drop ceiling panels stained.

               8. Rear room wall peeling paint and plaster.

               9. Foyer wall peeling paint and plaster.

               10. Kitchen walls are cracked.

               11. Foyer ceiling light defective.

          The following services were found to be maintained.

               1. Bathroom no evidence of any defects to toilet.

               2. No evidence of defective apartment entrance door      
                  locks.

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          the tenant has denied him access to the subject apartment and that 
          the DHCR Enforcement Bureau determined in Docket Number 22,793HL 
          that repairs have been done.

          The petition was served on the tenant on December 17, 1990, and the 
          tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that the service 
          deficiencies have existed for a long time and that the only time 
          access was refused was when the owner demanded payment for the 
          repairs and assaulted her.

          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 the 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 record under review shows that the owner failed to raise the 
          "no access" issue below.  In fact, his answer of August 2, 1990, 
          repeatedly asserts that certain service deficiencies had already 
          been corrected.  On appeal, a letter from the owner dated September 
          11, 1990, also makes reference to repairs made in the subject 
          apartment by the building's superintendent.

          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.
          Moreover, the Commissioner has considered but rejects the owner's 
          contention that the Enforcement Bureau's order, under Docket 
          22,793HL, determined that the owner made all repairs.





          Doc. #EK110320RO

          A review of Division records reveals that the Enforcement Bureau 
          determined that no further Enforcement action was warranted against 
          the owner because, among other things:

               The remaining complaints refer to decreases in services 
               and do not warrant further Enforcement Bureau action.  
               You may if this has not already been done, file a 
               decrease in service complaint with your District Rent 
               Office.

          It is apparent that no determination was made that the owner 
          corrected the service deficiencies.

          The inspector's report clearly showed the existence of eleven (11) 
          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 
          determination.

          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 September 20, 1990, 
          and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of 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 provision of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and 
          that the 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