FF110170RO
                                    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     S.J.R. NO.:   
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     5942 Court Remit    
          APPEAL OF 
                                                  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                                  DOCKET NO.:             
                    RICHARD ALBERT,               FF110170RO
                    
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     DB110805S       
          ----------------------------------x



            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                       AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER


          On June 13, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a  
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          April 4, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as Apartment 3-C, 94-03 222nd Street, Queens, 
          New York, wherein the Administrator ordered a reduction in the 
          legal regulated rent and directed the owner to restore services 
          that an inspection revealed were not being maintained.

          The Commissioner issued an order on July 12, 1991 dismissing the 
          owner's petition as untimely.

          Subsequent thereto, the owner filed  petition for judicial review 
          of the Commissioner's order pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil 
          Practice Law and Rules.  In an order dated June 23, 1992, the 
          Supreme Court, Queens County, (DiTucci, J.) remanded the proceeding 
          to the Division for a decision on the merits.

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

          The record reveals that the tenant filed a complaint on February 
          10, 1989 alleging that the existing security intercom system in the 
          tenant's apartment is inoperable, that the owner's electrician had 
          recently cut off part of the intercom while repairing the door 
          bell, and that a violation had been issued by the Office of Code 
          Enforcement (OEC) for this condition.












          FF110170RO



          In answer to the complaint the owner stated that it had been estab- 
          lished in other proceedings before the Division that a working 
          intercom is not a required service in the subject building.

          An inspection of the apartment on March 25, 1991 revealed that the 
          intercom was not working and window screens were missing in the 
          master and second bedroom.  The inspector also reported that there 
          was no evidence of peeling paint and plaster in the dining room or 
          living room, and that the door bell was working but that the tenant 
          did not have a buzzer system.

          In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts in 
          substance that the tenant's complaint referred only to the intercom 
          which the owner stated, in answer to the complaint and again on 
          appeal, is not a required service.

          After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Commis- 
          sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted and 
          the Rent Administrator's order should be revoked. 

          The complaint served on the owner mentioned only the intercom.  
          There is another complaint in the file dated November 10, 1988 but 
          it is not stamped received by the Division and there is no evidence 
          that it was served on the owner.  The inspection of items other 
          than the intercom was improper as was the inclusion of these items 
          in the rent reduction order.  The finding regarding the intercom 
          was also incorrect, given the Division's determination in other 
          proceedings that an intercom is not a required service in the 
          subject building.

          The rent reduction order is revoked.  Any rent arrears due as a 
          result of this order may be paid back in twelve monthly 
          installments.


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

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is granted, and 
          that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          revoked.


          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