ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 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
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.: FA  410124  RO
                                                              EH 410077 RO
                                              : 
              MORTON KARPER,                                   
                                                 DRO DOCKET NOS.:
                                                 EJ 410032 OR
                                PETITIONER    :  DF 430066 B
          ------------------------------------X 

            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                 AND TERMINATING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               On August 3,  1990  and  January  14,  1991  the  above-named
          petitioner-owner  filed  Administrative  Appeals  against   orders
          issued on June 29, 1990 and December 6, 1990, respectively by  the
          District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New 
          York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 205 West 22nd 
          Street, New York, New York.

               The Commissioner deems  it  appropriate  to  consolidate  the
          owner's administrative appeals for determination under this  order
          and opinion.  

               Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a  petition  in  the
          Supreme Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and 
          Rules requesting that the "deemed denial"  of  his  administrative
          appeal be annulled.

               On September 9, 1991 an order was signed by Justice Glenn
          remitting the  proceeding  to  the  Division  for  an  expeditious
          determination of the petitioner's administrative appeal.

               The issue in the petition filed under Docket Number EH 410077 
          RO is whether the District Rent Administrator properly  determined
          the tenant's application for a decrease in rent.

               A review of the record reveals that  on  May  30,  1989,  the
          tenant filed a Statement of Complaint of a Decrea e  in  Building-
          Wide Services alleging that the owner has failed to provide buzzer 
          services; that bricks were falling off the  building;  that  there
          was a broken panel to  the  front  door  of  her  apartment;  that
          exterminator services were lacking; that there was a leak from the 
          roof and that the stove pipes were clogged.   

               On June 21, 1989, the owner responded alleging, in substance, 
          that all repairs had been made. 


               On February 5, 1990, an inspection was held, which disclosed, 
          that with the exception of  pitted  and  cracked  tar  paper,  all
          repairs had been made in a workmanlike manner; thus substantiating 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 RO 
          the owner's reply to the complaint.

               However, on June 29, 1990, the  District  Rent  Administrator
          issued an order  reducing  the  regulated  rents  in  the  subject
          building, based on the inspection, which  revealed  parts  of  the
          roof to be broken and cracked.  

               On appeal, the owner asserted that the tenant has engaged  in
          a history of unfounded complaints against him  and  that  numerous
          requests for rent reductions have been denied.   Furthermore,  the
          inspection conducted by the DHCR  showed  clearly  that  with  the
          exception of pitted roof tar-paper, all repairs had been made. 

               The owner further claimed, on appeal, that even  f  the  tar-
          paper was pitted, it did not result in any leaks into the tenant's 
          apartment.

               After a careful  consideration  of  the  entire  evidence  of
          record, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative 
          appeal under docket No. EH 410077 RO should be  granted  and  that
          the administrative appeal under docket No. FA-410124 RO should  be
          dismissed. 

               It is clear that when  the  tenant  filed  her  Statement  of
          Complaint below, she did not mention cracked or  pitted  roof  tar
          paper.  Rather, there was, among other things, a claim of  a  leak
          from the roof.

               However, there is no evidence that a leak had occurred in the 
          tenant's apartment.

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that it was error for the 
          District Rent Administrator to reduce the tenant's rent  and  that
          the rent reduction order should be revoked.

               The appeal filed under docket No. FA-410124 RO, is an owner's 
          petition filed against the  District  Rent  Administrator's  order
          dated December 6, 1990, which denied the  owner's  application  to
          restore the rents.

               A review of the file reveals that the aforesaid Petition  was
          not filed within 35 days after the issuance date of the  order  as
          required by the applicable Regulations  and  Operational  Bulletin
          84-1, which provides that a  Petition  for  Administrative  Review
          must be filed within 35 days after the date such order is issued. 

               There  is  no  provision  under  the  applicable  Regulations
          permitting an extension of time for the filing of a PAR. 





               The Commissioner finds that  the  petitioner  has  failed  to
          comply with the requirements set forth above and that the PAR must 
          therefore be dismissed.

               The Commissioner further finds that,  even  if  the  petition
          filed under docket No. FA-410124 RO had been timely filed, it must 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FA 410124 RO & EH 410077 RO 
          be terminated as being  moot,  insofar  as  the  owner's  petition
          filed under docket  No.  EH  410077  RO  is  being  granted;  thus
          obviating the need for a restoration proceeding, ab initio. 

               Should there be arrears owing to the owner  as  a  result  of
          this order and opinion the tenant shall be permitted  to  pay  off
          such arrears in six equal monthly installments beginning with the
          first rent payment date after issuance of this order and  opinion.
          If  the  tenant  has  vacated,  such  arrears  shall  be   payable
          immediately. 

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

               ORDERED, that the petition under docket number EH 410077  RO,
          be and the same  hereby  is,  granted;  that  the  petition  under
          docket Number FA-410124 RO be, and the same  hereby  is  dismissed
          and further that the District Rent Administrator's orders  be  and
          the same hereby are, revoked in accordance  with  this  order  and
          opinion.

          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