FE 410429 RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
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
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,
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
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