FF 110368 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.:  FF 110368 RO

                      VIG ASSOCIATES,
                                                  DRO DOCKET NO.: ED 110104 S

                                  PETITIONER
          ----------------------------------X                                   


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


          On June 21, 1991 the above-named petitioner filed an 
          Administrative Appeal against an order issued on May 28, 1991 by 
          the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, 
          Jamaica, New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 
          43-31 Ithaca Street, Elmhurst, New York, Apartment 302. 

          The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the 
          provisions of 9 NYCRR 2520.6(r) and 9 NYCRR 2523.4.

          The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator 
          properly determined the tenant's complaint of decreased services.

          A review of the record reveals that on April 5, 1989 the tenant 
          filed a complaint wherein she listed several alleged deficient 
          conditions involving the walls and ceilings of the bathroom, 
          hallway and bedrooms.

          The owner filed an answer on May 1, 1990 alleging that the 
          bathroom and a bedroom were painted.

          The owner stated the tenant had covered other walls with 
          wallpaper without permission.

          The owner contended that the services alleged to have been 
          reduced were restored; or unavailable for plastering due to 
          tenant wallpapering.

          The subject apartment was inspected by a Division of Housing and 
          Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector on April 16, 1991 who 
          submitted a written report containing two deficient conditions 












          FF 110368 RO

          consistent with the tenant's complaint.

          On May 28, 1991, the District Rent Administrator issued the 
          order appealed herein.  The District Rent Administrator's order 
          reduced the rent for the subject apartment to the level in effect 
          prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced before 
          the effective date of the order, such rent reduction being 
          effective as of May 1, 1990, the first rent payment date after 
          the Division informed the owner of the tenant's complaint.

          This order was based upon the above mentioned inspection which 
          revealed:

1.Master bedroom ceiling and walls near the 
right side window had large area covered with 
peeling paint and plaster and bulging.

2.There is a large hole in hallway wall to the 
right of bathroom door.

          On appeal, the owner alleged that the tenant denied access to the 
          master bedroom and hallway to paint and plaster due to tenant 
          having covered these areas over with wallpaper.

          In reply the tenant denied that he was ever informed that he 
          should remove wallpaper prior to plastering.

          After a careful review of the entire evidence of record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's administrative 
          appeal should be denied.

          A review of the impartial inspector's report indicates that the 
          inspector made no reference to there being wallpaper in either of 
          the areas where there was found to be peeling paint and plaster 
          and a hole in the wall.

          Accordingly, the owner is not entitled to a reversal of the Rent 
          Administrator's order which was based upon the impartial 
          inspector's report which bears greater probative value than the 
          owner's self-serving and unsupported claims.








          The order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's 
          right to file for a rent restoration upon restoration of 
          services.







          FF 110368 RO

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

          ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby 
          is, denied, and that the order of the District Rent 
          Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.





          ISSUED:
          ------------------------
          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