Docket Number: FA 110348-RO
                                 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 
        IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE :  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
        APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FA 110348-RO 
                                            :  
                                               DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          SUMMIT HOUSE ASSOC./                 DOCKET NO.: DH 110243-S
          LEON DREW,                        :   
                                               Subject Premises: 
                              PETITIONER    :   87-10 51st Ave., Apt No.3P,
        ------------------------------------X   Elmhurst, NY 11373      
          

           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On January 28, 1991, the above-named owner filed a  timely  petition
        for administrative review of an order issued on  December  21,  1991
        concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to   the   above-
        described docket number.  

        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 petition.

        On August 8, 1989, the tenant commenced this proceeding by filing  a
        complaint asserting that "the terrace  door  needs  replacement...";
        that the "terrace ceiling (is) peeling, needs scraping, cement  work
        and re-painting..."; that the owner removed the broken kitchen stove 
        timer for replacement but failed to replace it for months; and  that
        the "kitchen cabinets have rotted wooden doors which are falling off 
        at the hinges."

        In its answer filed on September 25, 1989,  the  owner  asserted  in
        substance that required repairs had been  performed  (including  the
        replacement of the stove over timer) and will be completed.

        Thereafter on June 26, 1990, an inspection of the subject  apartment
        was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of 
        defective conditions.

        The Administrator directed on December 10, 1990 restoration of these 
        services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.

        In this petition, the owner contends that the tenant refused access, 
        but the repairs had been performed; and that the tenant also refused 
        the "free standing oven timer" bought and delivered by owner.

        In reply, the tenant denied the allegations set forth in the owner's 
        petition and otherwise asserted that it was the owner who failed  to
        show up at the scheduled appointment for repairs; that the tenant is 
        willing to help the owner  find  a  comparable  kitchen  stove  with
        timer, not the lesser quality and smaller "free standing oven timer" 
        substituted by the owner.







          Docket Number: FA 110348-RO

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

        It is noted that the owner failed to raise  the  defense  of  tenant
        refusing access in the proceeding below and before the  issuance  of
        the order but only alleged this self-serving, unproven and  disputed
        assertion for the first time on appeal.

        As to the issue of a comparable replacement  of  the  kitchen  stove
        with timer, the tenant's assertion that the  owner  substituted  its
        defective oven with that of a lesser quality and size is  undisputed
        by the owner.  

        The owner's petition furthermore does not  make  clear  whether  the
        owner contends that repairs on the  remaining  defective  conditions
        had been made before the apartment was inspected or  the  order  was
        issued, or  whether  the  owner  contends  that  repairs  were  made
        following the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.  If it  is
        the former, then the owner's allegation is belied by the  report  of
        the agency inspector.  If it is the latter, then the Administrator's 
        order was nevertheless correct when issued.

        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.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        Deputy Commissioner