FI 110070-RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FI 110070-RO;              
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                 VAN KLEECK ASSOCIATES,           DOCKET NO.:
                                                  FC 110470-S               
                                                  SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                  51-25 Van Kleeck Street
                                   PETITIONER     Apt. 7-F, Elmhurst, NY


           The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
           review of an order issued on August 7, 1991, concerning the housing 
           accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.

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

           The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 19, 1991 by filing a 
           complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
           services in the subject apartment.  Included in the complaint was 
           an allegation that there is profuse infestation of roaches in the 
           kitchen and bathroom.

           In its answer filed on April 22, 1991, the owner denied the 
           allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint, and otherwise 
           asserted that all required services are being provided and that the 
           tenant only has to contact the owner if repairs have to be done.  
           The owner stated that the building is serviced twice a month by a 
           professional exterminating service.  A copy of a list of tenants 
           who signed up for services on March 26, 1991 was enclosed and the 
           complainant's name is not listed.  A copy of a work order with the 
           tenant's signature dated April 12, 1991 was also submitted, on 
           which was listed "Roach's spray 4/9" among the work completed.

           A letter was received by the Division on July 24, 1991, in which 
           the tenant withdrew the complaint because services had been 

          FI 110070-RO

           However, the subject apartment was inspected on July 23, 1991 by a 
           DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of roach infestation 
           in the kitchen.

           Based on said inspection, the Administrator directed the restora- 
           tion of services and a reduction of the stabilized rent.

           In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it was not 
           informed of the defective conditions by the tenant; that these 
           conditions "were immediately attended to" when DHCR informed the 
           owner; that the tenant withdrew the complaint before the inspection 
           and the order's issuance; and that the conditions are minor, not 
           warranting a rent reduction.

           After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
           that this petition should be granted in part and the 
           Administrator's modified.

           Based on the two statements purportedly signed by the tenant that 
           all repairs had been completed, and that the complaint was being 
           withdrawn, the owner could reasonably assume that no further action 
           was required and that the proceeding before the Division would be 
           terminated without a rent reduction.  Due process requires that the 
           tenant's statement, if submitted by the owner, be served on the 
           tenant and, if challenged, that the owner be advised that the 
           complaint was not being withdrawn.

           In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that, 
           contrary to the owner's allegation and the statement allegedly 
           signed by the tenant, the necessary repairs were not done.  The 
           "roach spray" administered in April 1991 could not have been 
           effective if roach infestation was noted by the inspector three 
           months later.

           A rent reduction for these conditions is required pursuant to 
           Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, but because of the 
           failure to verify the tenant's signature on the signed work order 
           and withdrawal statement, or to advise the owner that the complaint 
           was not being terminated, the effective date of the rent reduction 
           is hereby modified to September 1, 1991, the first of the month 
           following issuance of the Administrator's order, when the owner had 
           actual knowledge that the complaint was still active and that the 
           agency's physical inspection revealed the need for additional or 
           more effective exterminating services.

          FI 110070-RO

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

           ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
           part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
           is, modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.


                                                 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