STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ----------------------------------x     S.J.R. NO.:  6326
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                   GISELLE GUERRE,                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:


          On January 31, 1992, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order 
          denying the tenant's petition for administrative review (PAR) of 
          Rent Administrator's order, dated June 18, 1991, concerning the 
          housing accommodation known as 110 Morningside Drive, Apartment 53, 
          New York, New York, wherein the Administrator had dismissed the 
          tenant's complaint of a decrease in individual apartment services, 
          based on a finding that the tenant had failed to submit information 
          requested by the Administrator.

          Thereafter, the tenant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court 
          pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.  
          Pursuant to a Stipulation of Settlement dated August 21, 1992, the 
          petitioner-tenant and the Deputy Commissioner, by his attorney, 
          consented to remand the proceedings to the Division for further 
          review and consideration of the tenant's administrative appeal.

          The tenant's complaint filed on September 21, 1990 alleged that the 
          owner had failed to maintain the premises with respect to plas- 
          tering and painting and the tri-annual painting, the installation 
          and replacement of electrical equipment, defective windows, and 
          ceilings flooding.

          On April 12, 1991, the owner filed an extensively documented 
          response setting forth that the majority of the conditions had been 
          addressed and that, as to the remaining conditions, the owner's 
          inability to complete repairs on a timely basis resulted because of


          the tenant's refusal to provide access on several occasions.  The 
          owner's response included signed work orders, invoices, and an 
          affidavit by the owner's employee that repairs had been completed.

          The Administrator's notice to the tenant, dated April 18, 1991, 
          noted that the "landlord replied that they had completed all 
          repairs", and that there was a copy of the letter which stated 
          "everything is fixed", and requested the tenant to"confirm or deny 
          that this is a true copy of your signature" on the attached work 

          The examiner's progress sheet reflects an entry for April 18, 1991, 
          setting forth that the "landlord has replied that they have 
          completed all repairs.  Mailed letter to tenant for additional 
          information and copy of work order signed by the tenant".

          The tenant responded that the Administrator's request failed to 
          submit a "copy of letter stating that everything is fixed", and 
          that a "complete answer will be forwarded upon receipt of said 

          On June 12, 1991, the Administrator issued the order denying the 
          tenant's complaint.

          On appeal, the tenant requested the Administrator to reverse the 
          determination asserting that she was unable to gather and verify 
          the necessary documents because she was involved in Court proceed- 
          ings with the owner, but would satisfy the request for information 
          at a future date.

          On January 31, 1992, the Commissioner denied the tenant's appeal on 
          the grounds that the petition failed to set forth any errors of law 
          or fact in the Administrator's order below, and that neither the 
          tenant's answer below nor the tenant's appeal contested that the 
          owner had addressed the conditions alleged in the complaint.

          The Commissioner's order also pointed out that the tenant had been 
          granted rent abatements for similar conditions in an order dated 
          December 21, 1990 under Docket No. DJ520731S (inadvertently cited 
          incorrectly as DJ520908S) based on inspections conducted on May 23, 
          1990 and June 20, 1990.  The Commissioner also observed that the 
          rent had not been restored, and that the determination was under 
          administrative appeal by both the owner and the tenant.

          On remand from the Court, by a notice dated March 2, 1993, the 
          tenant was requested to comment on documents from the owner's 
          answer in the proceedings below, herein under appeal.


          The tenant was provided and was requested to address the owner's 
          affidavit dated April 10, 1991, detailing repairs to the kitchen 
          door lock and an invoice dated November 9, 1990 showing installa- 
          tion of a bathroom light fixture.  The tenant was also requested
          to confirm or deny that the signatures on a work order dated 
          February 4, 1991 acknowledging adequate completion of a tri-annual 
          painting, and on a work order dated February 15, 1991 acknowledging 
          the closing of kitchen floor and ceiling holes, were true copies of 
          her signature.

          The tenant was not requested to comment as to the remaining com- 
          plaints because rent reductions in the amount of $33.00 were 
          already in effect pursuant to the December 21, 1990 order per 
          Docket No. DJ520731S for cracked and peeling paint in the bedroom, 
          a loose wall molding, defective windows and a defective electric 
          box in the hall.  The order also reflected that there was no 
          evidence of defective wiring or defective floors throughout the 
          apartment, no evidence of leaks, and no evidence of a defective 
          breaker box.  The tenant had also filed another complaint on 
          December 28, 1990 processed per Docket No. EL420540S that also 
          cited ceilings flooding throughout the apartment.  On March 13, 
          1992 the Administrator granted the tenant a prospective $5.00 rent 
          abatement for a defective ceiling in one bedroom, due to a leak 
          emanating from the apartment above.

          On March 20, 1993 the tenant responded to the request of March 2, 
          1993.  The tenant confirmed that the signatures appearing on the 
          work order forms were true signatures.  However, the tenant's 
          remaining comments were not directed to the conditions and 
          documents specified in the request.

          Although requested to comment on the kitchen door lock condition, 
          the tenant cites problems with a bedroom door during the summer of 
          1992, and current problems with closing the front door.

          With respect to the bathroom light fixture, the tenant merely notes 
          that the fixture broke in March 1993, and that she would have 
          preferred the November 1990 installation to have been above the 
          mirror rather than on the ceiling.

          The tenant also complains about bedroom ceiling leaks in 1992, 
          which was after the date of the Administrator's order herein under 
          review, and cites a defective bedroom window in March of 1993.  As 
          previously noted, the tenant has already obtained rent reductions 
          for several defective windows, as well as a rent reduction for a 
          defective bedroom ceiling due to leaks, granted on March 13, 1992 
          per Docket No. EL420540S.

          Most of the tenant's comments concern new claims.  However, since 
          administrative appeal is strictly limited to a review of the record 


          below, the tenant's new claims may not be considered herein.

          Moreover, the entire record reveals that, alternatively, the tenant 
          acknowledged repairs, or reiterated conditions for which rent 
          reductions had been granted and remained outstanding, or for which 
          no evidence was found upon inspection or were found to have been 
          rectified, or for which rent reductions were obtained under other 
          dockets thereafter.

          Consequently, there is no basis to revoke and reconsider the Admin- 
          istrator's determination below, denying further rent reductions.

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

          ORDERED, upon reopening of the administrative review proceedings 
          for reconsideration, that the petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed, as previously provided.


                                                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