FE 410429 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.: FE 410429 RO

                                               DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR
               Rochelle Gutman,                DOCKET NO.: EE 410224-OR

                                               Tenant: Bonnie Maxan     
                                   PETITIONER
          -----------------------------------X

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On  May  27,  1991  the  above-named  petitioner-owner  filed   a
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of  the  Rent
          Administrator issued May 21, 1991.  The order  concerned  housing
          accommodations known as 205 West 95th Street, Apt. 34, New  York,
          New York.

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

          The owner commenced this proceeding on May 21, 1990 by filing  an
          application  to  restore  rent.   Petitioner   alleged   to   the
          Administrator that all services for which a rent reduction  order
          was issued under Docket  No.  ZDD  410286-S  had  been  restored.
          Specifically, the owner alleged that the  tenant's  alarm  system
          had been repaired on May 18, 1990.  Copies of bills and  invoices
          were attached.  The tenant did not sign the owner's application.

          The tenant filed a response to the application on June 26,  1990.
          In that response she stated that her alarm does not work  and  no
          effort has been made to correct that situation.  The tenant  took
          issue with petitioner's invoices.  The invoices  set  forth  that
          two lantern batteries per control had  been  installed  and  that
          "wire, foil and contact" had been used to repair the system.  The 
          tenant stated that only 1,  and  not  2,  lantern  batteries  per
          control were installed and  foil  was  not  used  in  repair.   A
          physical inspection of the apartment was ordered and conducted on 
          January 25, 1991.  The inspector found that the burglar alarm  on
          the living room windows was not operative nor was the  alarm  set
          for the apartment  door.   On  May  29,  1991  the  Administrator
          issued the order appealed from, denying the owner's application.

          On appeal the owner again states that the alarm was fixed both on 
          May 24, and again on July  15,  1990.   After  the  July  repair,
          petitioner claims the  tenant  never  notified  them  of  further
          problems with the system.  The owner states that the  system  was
          battery powered and, if a change of batteries  is  required,  the
          tenant need only inform the building superintendent.  The  tenant
          did not file a response.







          FE 410429 RO
          After careful consideration of the evidence  in  the  record  the
          Commissioner is of  the  opinion  that  the  petition  should  be
          denied.

          The physical inspection confirms the tenant's statement that  the
          repairs have not been done in a effective manner.  The  inspector
          found that the alarm was not operative both on  the  living  room
          windows  and  the  front  door.   The   Commissioner   deems   it
          appropriate to rely on the  inspector's  findings.   The  owner's
          proof that he paid someone to repair the alarm does not rebut the 
          Administrator's determination based on the inspection,  that  the
          work did not correct the defective condition.  It is the  owner's
          obligation to assure the quality of the work he or she  contracts
          for to repair defective conditions.

          Since the services have not been restored the  Administrator  was
          correct in denying the application.

          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 Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.

          ISSUED:

           
                                                  ELLIOT SANDER
                                                  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