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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FL520261RO
          VICKERS MANAGEMENT CORP.                RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: FH520326S


               On November 27, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued November 22, 1991. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt. 42 located at 640 West 139th Street, 
          New York, N.Y.  The Administrator directed restoration of services 
          and ordered a rent reduction based on the owner's failure to 
          maintain essential services.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 14, 1991 by 
          filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein he 
          alleged that the owner was not maintaining certain essential 
          services within the meaning of the Rent and Eviction Regulations.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on September 
          30, 1991 and stated, in sum, that it had made the required repairs 
          or that the cited conditions did not warrant a rent reduction. 
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on October 31, 1991 and 
          revealed the following:

                    1.   Kitchen walls are water stained, blistered and have 
                         rough surfaces,

                    2.   Kitchen floor sloping, torn and stained,


                    3.   Bathroom ceiling plastered but not painted,

                    4.   First bedroom walls discolored,

                    5.   Living room walls blistered, water stained and 
                         rough surfaces,

                    6.   Living room floor covering around radiator is 
                         rotted with gaps and holes,

                    7.   Living room ceiling blistered and rough surfaces.

          The inspector reported that the other services complained of were 
          being maintained.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on 
          November 11, 1991 and ordered a $35.00 per month rent reduction 
          based on the inspector's report.

               On appeal the owner states that repairs had been made
          to the affected areas, that the tenant refused to sign a work order 
          acknowledging that the owner had made repairs, that the owner was 
          not afforded an opportunity to respond to the complaint after the 
          initial notice and that the Administrator ordered a rent reduction 
          for conditions which were already the subject of a rent reduction 
          ordered in Docket No. BK520582S and which remained in effect.  The 
          owner attached copies of invoices and statements from two employees 
          of the contractor who allegedly made repairs to the subject 
          apartment.  This documentation was offered in support of the 
          owner's contention that it had made the required repairs to the 
          subject apartment in November 1990, April 1991 and May 1991.  The 
          petition was served on the tenant on February 11, 1992.

               The tenant filed a response on February 28, 1992 and stated 
          that the owner had not restored services and that the petition 
          should be denied.
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted 
          in part and order here under review should be affirmed as modified.

               The owner's argument that it had made the required repairs to 
          the subject apartment is rebutted by the report of the DHCR 
          inspector who visited the apartment after the repairs were 
          purportedly done.  The inspector is neither a party to the 
          proceeding nor an adversary.  Numerous prior decisions of the 
          Commissioner have stated that the report of a DHCR inspector is 
          entitled to more probative weight than the unsupported allegations 
          of a party to the proceeding.  The owner's statement that it had no 
          additional opportunity to offer explanations to the complaint is 
          without merit.  The filing of a complaint alleging failure to 
          maintain services puts the owner on notice of the existence of the 


          conditions and the necessity to investigate and make repairs.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record in Docket No. 
          BK520582S in order to determine if the rent was reduced for the 
          same conditions that form the basis for the rent reduction ordered 
          in this proceeding.  Pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York City, the Administrator is 
          authorized to order a rent reduction, based on a failure to 
          maintain services, in an amount which reflects the decreased rental 
          value of the subject accommodations because of the reduced 
          services.  Therefore, the rent may not be reduced twice for the 
          same condition. In Docket No. BK520582S the tenant complained about 
          damage caused by water leaks in the bathroom, kitchen and bedroom.  
          A review of the April 27, 1988 inspector's report in that 
          proceeding reveals that these allegations were confirmed and the 
          rent was ordered reduced because of the water damage found in each 
          of the three rooms.  

               The owner is correct in arguing that the rent reductions 
          ordered for the conditions relating to water damaged walls and 
          ceilings in the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom are duplications of 
          the rent reduction previously ordered and in effect.  Accordingly, 
          the findings in the order here under review which relate to these 
          conditions are revoked and the order here under review is further 
          modified to order a $20 per month rent reduction effective December 
          1, 1991.  The order here under review is affirmed as modified.
               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City it is 

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          granted in part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and 
          the same hereby is, affirmed as modified herein.  Any arrears owned 
          by the tenants based on the Commissioner's decisions herein may be 
          paid off in installments of $15.00 per month or immediately if the 
          tenant vacates that apartment.


                                             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