Docket Number: FG 610264-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.: FG 610264-RO 
                                                
            DOGWOOD TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATES/        DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            ARTHUR WIENER,                       DOCKET NO.: EI 610543-S
                                   
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                PETITIONER       4601 Henry Hudson Pkwy, Apt. A-10
          ----------------------------------X    Bronx, NY 10471       

             ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On July 26, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative  review  of  an  order  issued  on  July  8,   1991,
          concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to  the   above-
          described docket number.  

          This administrative appeal is  being  determined  pursuant  to  the
          provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code. 

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

          On September 21, 1990, the  tenant  commenced  this  proceeding  by
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to  maintain
          inter alia these services in the subject  apartment,  namely,  that
          "(t)he living room floor has buckled from a steam leak and has  not
          been repaired since February 1990 ... a serious tripping hazard" to 
          these senior citizen tenants; and that "(a)ll the window  and  door
          wood framing (exterior) has not been maintained  and  needs  to  be
          sanded and painted."

          In its answer filed on December 26, 1990, the owner requested  "one
          month to properly answer this complaint."

          On January 16, 1991, the owner denied the allegations set forth  in
          the tenant's complaint and otherwise asserted that repairs had been 
          completed.

          Thereafter on June 6, 1991, the subject apartment was inspected  by
          D.H.C.R. which confirmed that  the  "living  room  floor  near  the
          dining room is buckled under rug  across  the  doorway";  that  the
          floor is also buckled "near the window in the  living  room";  that
          the "front-door inside molding on frame is  cracked  and  loose  on
          wall"; that the "outside framing  around  (the)  door  has  peeling
          paint; and that the "back door  framing  on  outside  of  door  has
          peeling paint."

          The Administrator directed on July 8,  1991  restoration  of  these
          services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent.






          Docket Number: FG 610264-RO


          In this petition, the owner alleges in substance that  it  received
          no notice from the tenant's original complaint of a defective  door
          inside molding; that the windows had been painted; that the  tenant
          was given a "new front door with  a  new  molding";  and  that  the
          buckled floors had been repaired but only after the tenant complied 
          "to remove her aging carpet."

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion
          that the petition should be denied.

          It is noted that contrary to the owner's contentions, it was  aware
          of the door's defective inside molding from the  tenant's  original
          complaint because the owner alleges that it gave the tenant "a  new
          front door with a new molding."

          As to repairs  having  been  completed,  the  owner's  petition  is
          unclear.  If the owner contends that repairs had been  made  before
          the apartment was inspected or  the  order  was  issued,  then  the
          owner's allegation is belied by the report of the agency inspector. 
          If the owner contends that repairs were made following the issuance 
          of  the  Administrator's  order,  then  the  Administrator's  order
          reducing the rent was correct when issued.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without  prejudice  to  the  owner
          filing an application for restoration of services, if the facts  so
          warrant.

          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 District 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