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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NOS.:                 
                                                FE 110355-RO; FE 110357-RO;  
                                                FE 110358-RO; FE 110359-RO;  
                                                FE 110360-RO; FE 110361-RO;  
                                                FE 110362-RO; FE 110363-RO;
                                                FE 110365-RO; FE 110366-R0;
                 JAIME ASSOCIATES,            : FE 110367-RO; FE 110368-RO;
                                                FE 110369-RO
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S      
                                                DOCKET NOS.:              
                                                ED 110942-S; ED 110943-S;
                                                ED 110945-S; ED 110946-S;
                                                ED 110947-S; ED 110952-S;
                              PETITIONER      : ED 110953-S; ED 110956-S;
          ------------------------------------X ED 110958-S; ED 110959-S;    
                                                ED 110962-S; ED 110967-S;
                                                ED 110976-S


               The above-named petitioner owner filed timely individual 
          Petitions for Administrative Review appealing orders issued by the 
          Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, New York, which 
          determined identical complaints filed by the tenants alleging that 
          the installation of new windows was defective.

               In response to the tenants' complaints, the owner stated that 
          the installation was completed in August 1989 and that the window 
          contractor was called back for adjustment on May 19 and 21, 1990.  
          The owner also submitted a statement signed by each tenant, dated 
          July 23, 1990, asserting that the windows were functioning 

               However, inspection of each apartment confirmed some of the 
          following conditions in every apartment: 

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 110355-RO ET AL.

               1. Windows in need of caulking.
               2. Window trims requiring caulking.
               3. Defective window sashes.
               4. Windows that  failed to close properly.
               5. Defective window latches and locks.

               Accordingly, the Administrator issued orders granting each 
          tenant a rent abatement retroactive to the first month following 
          the service of the tenants' complaints on the owner.

               In each appeal, the owner reiterates assertions below that the 
          window problems were corrected to the tenants' satisfaction, as 
          indicated by each tenant's signature on the statement of July 23, 

               The owner also argues that he was not given the opportunity to 
          correct the conditions, as he was not served a copy of the 
          inspector's findings. 

               Lastly, the owner disputes that failure to adjust windows and 
          moldings, and to paint, caulk and smooth the windows constitute 
          services reductions.

               Petitioner's contention that the windows were adequately 
          repaired is rebutted by the results of inspections conducted by 
          agency staff.  The tenants' statements relied on by the owner 
          consists of a list in a ledger book with tenants' names and their 
          signatures under a column heading stating "windows are functioning 
          properly"; the upper right hand corner bears the date July 23, 
          1990.  This document is not sufficient to establish that the 
          tenants signed on July 23, 1990, or that the tenants intended to 
          withdraw their complaints.  In light of the inspections, and in the 
          absence of evidence that repairs were made, the tenants' signed 
          statements are not dispositive.  

               The petitioner's claim of lack of due process is rejected.  
          The owner was afforded due notice by service of the tenants' 
          complaints.  Also the Division's procedures do not require the 
          Administrator to give the owner notice of the results of an 
          inspection prior to the issuance of an order. 

               It is further noted that the Court has affirmed the Division's 
          determination in identical proceedings concerning the owner and 
          other tenants in the subject accommodations.  Jaime Associates v.  
          DHCR, Index No. 25062/91, Sup. Ct., Queens Co., May 15, 1992 
          (Graci, J.)

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FE 110355-RO ET AL.

               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied and that the Rent Administrator's orders be, and the same 
          hereby are, affirmed.


                                          JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                          Acting 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