DOC. NO.: FD 110321-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.: FD 110321-RO
                        VIG ASSOCIATES,      :   DRO DOCKET NO.:
                                 PETITIONER  :              ED 110150-OR
         ------------------------------------X


             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


         The above named petitioner owner timely refiled a Petition for 
         Administrative Review against an order of the Rent Administrator 
         issued November 1, 1990.  The order concerned housing accommodations 
         known as Apt. 509 located at 43-31 Ithaca Street, Elmhurst, N.Y.  The 
         Administrator denied the owner's rent restoration application.

         The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully consider that 
         portion of the record relevant to the issues raised by this appeal.

         The owner commenced this proceeding by filing an application to 
         restore the rent on April 24, 1990.  In that application the owner 
         stated that the conditions which resulted in the issuance of a rent 
         reduction order (Docket # DD 110370-S) had been corrected and/or 
         restored.  The owner specifically stated that all cracks had been 
         fixed and that the entire apartment had been plastered and painted 
         to the tenant's satisfaction on April 18 and 19.

         The petitioner also stated that delays in restoring services were 
         caused by the tenant's refusal to provide access due to illness in 
         the tenant's family.  The owner annexed a letter allegedly sent to 
         the tenant on April 10, 1990 wherein access was demanded in order to 
         paint, plaster and otherwise repair the apartment.

         The tenant filed a response to the application wherein he stated 
         that he never received the letter the owner claims to have sent.  
         The tenant further stated that the apartment was painted in an 
         unworkmanlike manner which is why he refused to sign the work order.  
         The tenant denied delaying the work on the apartment.

         The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the premises, 
         which was conducted on October 3, 1990.
















          DOC. NO.: FD 110321-RO

         The inspection revealed the following:

Bathroom ceiling and walls were repaired in an
         unworkmanlike manner.

Bedroom walls were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.

Foyer walls were repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.

Livingroom ceiling was repaired in an unworkmanlike manner.

         The Administrator's order duly followed.

         On appeal the owner states "Tenant did not provide access to us to 
         fix the problems."  Petitioner attached a copy of letters, dated 
         November 9 and 19, 1990 wherein access was demanded.  The tenant did 
         not file a response.

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

         The access issue presented on appeal is not relevant to the 
         resolution of this proceeding.  Clearly, the owner's workers were 
         permitted access to the apartment to plaster and paint.  The issue 
         herein concerns the workmanlike manner in which the repairs were 
         done.  In its application, the petitioner stated that services had 
         been restored, which presupposes that all repairs were done in a 
         proper and workmanlike manner.  Both the tenant and inspector 
         contradicted the claim.  The Commissioner affords great weight to 
         the inspector's findings.  Since the repairs were not done in a 
         workmanlike manner, the defective conditions were not, in fact, 
         repaired.  The Administrator's order was based on substantial 
         evidence and must be affirmed.

         The owner may reapply for restoration of the rent when all repairs 
         have been properly done.

         THEREFORE, pursuant to 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