Docket Number: FE 110063-RO
                                 STATE OF NEW YORK
                           OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                    GERTZ PLAZA
                              92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                              JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FE 110063-RO 
             KREISEL CO. INC.,                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: DK 110721-S  
                              PETITIONER    : 

        On May 6, 1991, the above-named owner filed a  timely  petition  for
        administrative  review  of  an  order  issued  on  April  4,   1991,
        concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to   the   above-
        described docket number.  

        This administrative appeal  is  being  determined  pursuant  to  the
        provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.

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

        On November 28,  1989,  the  tenant  commenced  this  proceeding  by
        filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed  to  maintain
        certain services in the subject apartment.

        In its answer filed on March 12, 1990, the owner  asserted  that  on
        February 12, 1990, repairs were made in accordance with the tenant's 

        Thereafter on March 12, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment 
        was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector, who confirmed  the  existence
        of defective conditions.

        The Rent Administrator directed on  April  4,  1991  restoration  of
        these services and further ordered a reduction of the  stabilization

        In its petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  states,  in
        substance, that the tenant failed to provide access; that a previous 
        order  under  Docket  No.  EK  110037-S  issued  on  March  7,  1991
        contradicts this order now appealed  from;  and  that  the  tenant's
        complaint arises merely from routine building maintenance.

        In reply to the owner's petition filed on May 24, 1991,  the  tenant
        denied refusing access.  The tenant claimed that the owner  did  not
        allow him "reasonable time to prepare for (repairs)" and that the 

        owner was not "willing to properly fix...the problem"  and  "correct
        the situation to the way it was" before the disrepair.   The  tenant
        also claimed that the order cited by the owner is an  earlier  order
        based on a February 21, 1991 inspection, which was not  as  complete

        Docket Number: FE 110063-RO
        as the March 12, 1991 inspection of this order appealed from.

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

        As to the allegation that tenant refused access, the owner submitted 
        no evidence to  substantiate  this  contention  pursuant  to  Policy
        Statement 90-5 "Arranging Repairs/No Access Inspection" either while 
        the proceeding was pending before the Administrator or by attachment 
        to this petition.

        As to the allegation  that  a  previous  order  had  resolved  these
        defective conditions, the Commissioner  notes  that  Docket  No.  EK
        110037-S is based on an earlier and less  complete  inspection  than
        the March 12, 1991 inspection of this order appealed from.  The more 
        recent inspection checked not  only  the  plumbing  problem  of  the
        subject apartment but the causes of this problem,  particularly  the
        plumbing system  of  the  adjacent  apartments.   In  addition,  the
        owner's  cited  docket  number  arises  from  a  different  tenant's
        complaint and not the order appealed from.

        Despite the owner's assertion that  the  tenant's  complaint  arises
        merely from "routine  building  maintenance,"  inspection  disclosed
        defective conditions.  The owner provided  no  proof  to  rebut  the
        March 12, 1991 inspection findings.

        Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence the owner  has
        offered insufficient reason to disturb  the  Administrator's  order,
        and it should be affirmed.

        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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
        is, affirmed.


                                        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