FF 220497-RT;  FF 220242-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  FF 220497-RT                
             SHIRLEY BROWN and STERLING           FF 220242-RO
             REALTY  CO.   c/o  MARTIN   KIRZNER         RENT   ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: 
                                  PETITIONERS     FA 220051-OR


          The Commissioner has consolidated these petitions as they involve 
          common questions of law and fact.

          The above-named tenant and owner filed timely petitions  for  ad-
          ministrative review of an order issued on June  12,  1991,  by  a
          Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known  as
          Apartment 8-B, 1373 Sterling Place, Brooklyn, New  York,  wherein
          rent was partially restored due to a partial restoration  f  ser-

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

          On January 3, 1991, the subject owner filed an application for  a
          rent restoration based on its alleged restoration of services.

          The tenant  interposed  an  answer  to  the  owner's  application
          wherein she alleged that services had not been restored.

          On May 16, 1991 a physical inspection of  the  subject  apartment
          was carried out by the Division of Housing and Community  Renewal
          (DHCR).  The inspector, in his report, noted that  the  apartment
          door sags and needs refitting because it  is  hard  to  open  and
          close.  The inspector reported no  evidence  of  a  rotted  door,
          rotted door jamb, or loose metal.

          On June 12, 1991, the Rent Administrator issued  the  order  here
          under review, finding that a partial restoration of services  had
          occurred and partially  restoring  the  tenant's  rent  by  three
          dollars monthly.

          In her petition for administrative  review  the  tenant  requests
          reversal of the Rent Administrator's order alleging that the door 
          to her apartment is rotted and has not been  replaced.   Attached
          to her petition is a copy of a complaint filed with the New  York

          FF 220497-RT;  FF 220242-RO
          City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD).  

          In its petition for  administrative  review  the  owner  requests
          modification of the  Rent  Administrator's  order  disputing  the
          amount restored and alleging that the inoperative door  bell  was
          replaced with a door chime on the door itself.  Attached  to  the
          owner's petition is a photocopied letter dated June 17, 1991 from 
          the owner's contractor asserting that the  door  installation  it
          made on November 21, 1990 at the subject apartment  included  the
          frame, door, mortise lock, security chain, door bell, peep  hole,
          and keys.

          After careful consideration the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that both petitions should be denied.

          The Commissioner notes that the rent was  originally  reduced  by
          six dollars ($6.00) for the inoperative door bell  and  that  the
          Rent Administrator determined that it remains inoperative.   Rent
          was originally reduced by five dollars ($5.00) for t e  door  de-
          fects.  Upon determining 1) that the door was not rotted 2)  that
          the door jamb was not rotted 3) that there was  no  loose  metal,
          the Rent Administrator ordered  a  three  dollar  restoration  of
          rent.  The rent Administrator found 4) that  the  door  sags  and
          needs refitting and 5) that it is hard to open and close.   Since
          three of five defects in  the  door  were  corrected.   The  Rent
          Administrator properly restored three of the five  dollars  which
          were originally granted as a rent reduction.

          The Commissioner notes that while both the owner and  the  tenant
          question the findings of fact the record clearly  reflects  those
          findings by virtue of DHCR inspection which occurred on  May  16,

          Therefore, the Commissioner finds  that  the  Rent  Administrator
          properly relied on the results of the inspection, and that, based 
          thereon, the administrator properly  determined  that  the  owner
          had partially restored services and proper y  restored  the  ten-
          ant's rent in the amount of three dollars monthly.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and  Eviction  Regulations
          for New York City, it is,

          ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied 
          and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the  same  hereby
          is, affirmed.


                                                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