FH110095RO

                                  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     SJR 6667 DEEMED DENIAL

          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: FH110095RO
                                                  
          COPENHAGEN LEASING CO.                  RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: EJ110008RK 
                                  PETITIONER            
          ----------------------------------x


            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
               On July 31, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued June 26, 1991. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 16B located at 96-08 57th Avenue, 
          Corona, N.Y.  The Administrator issued an order wherein a prior 
          order, denying the owner's application for rent restoration, was 
          affirmed. 

               Subsequently, the owner instituted a proceeding pursuant to 
          Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules in New York State 
          Supreme Court deeming its petition for administrative review 
          denied.  A settlement was then entered into wherein the DHCR agreed 
          to issue a decision on the owner's petition no later than March 8, 
          1993.

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 
          appeal.

               The owner originally commenced this proceeding on January 22, 
          1990 by filing an Application for Rent Restoration wherein it 
          alleged that it had restored all remaining services in the subject 
          apartment for which a rent reduction order had been issued in 
          Docket No. CB110105S.  A prior rent restoration application 
          (CH110095OR) had been denied on August 25, 1989 based on a finding 
          that there was peeling paint on the bathroom wall next to the 
          showerhead and the bathroom ceiling and wall had not been painted; 
          several window sashes were defective and one kitchen cabinet door 
          required repair.  The kitchen light fixture and bathroom sink drain 
          problem were found to have been repaired.  The rent restoration 
          application was assigned Docket No. EA110160OR. The owner stated in 












          FH110095RO

          the application that the tenant is uncooperative and refuses to 
          allow access for the purpose of making repairs.  A court order of 
          access was obtained and all repairs were made the week of December 
          26, 1989.  The owner attached to the application copies of 
          photographs, work orders, and letters and court proceedings 
          regarding attempts to arrange access.

                After proper service of the application on the tenant, the 
          Administrator ordered a "no access" inspection to investigate 
          whether services had been restored.  The physical inspection on 
          June 4, 1990 revealed, among other things, that there was peeling 
          paint and plaster on the bathroom ceiling above the bathtub.  The 
          inspector reported that there was an agreement between the tenant 
          and managing agent for the peeling paint and plaster condition to 
          be repaired by the painter at 12:30 PM that same day.  The tenant 
          telephoned the inspector later that day and reported that no one 
          showed up to do the repairs.  On June 7, 1990, the owner was 
          advised of the inspection and afforded an opportunity to submit 
          evidence of repairs within 20 days.  The Administrator denied the 
          owner's application based on the owner's failure to submit a 
          response to this notice.

               The owner sent a letter to the Administrator on August 16, 
          1990 wherein the owner documented that it had, in fact, responded 
          to the Administrator's notice on June 19, 1990 wherein it stated 
          that the painting contractor completed the necessary repairs on 
          June 4, 1990 but the tenant refused to sign a work ticket.  The 
          owner attached an affidavit by the painting contractor.  The owner 
          requested that the Administrator revoke the order described above 
          and issue a new order granting the rent restoration application.  
          The Administrator sent a notice to the parties on October 23, 1990 
          stating that the proceeding was being reopened.  The parties were 
          afforded the opportunity to submit responses and additional 
          evidence on the question of whether the owner's application for 
          rent restoration should be granted.  The Administrator further 
          stated that an additional inspection would be conducted if 
          necessary.

               The owner filed a response to the notice on November 1, 1990 
          and stated the following:

                    1.   The inspection report in the original rent 
                         restoration proceeding made reference to conditions 
                         found to have been maintained by the Administrator 
                         in the rent reduction order,

                    2.   Repairs to the bathroom ceiling were completed on 
                         June 4, 1990, the same day of the DHCR inspection 
                         in the original rent restoration proceeding.  The 
                         owner supplied an affidavit from a painting 
                         contractor as evidence that the repairs had been 
                         completed,






          FH110095RO


                    3.   The tenant has repeatedly refused to grant access 
                         to the apartment and also refuses to acknowledge 
                         that any work has been done.  The owner further 
                         stated that numerous letters have been submitted to 
                         the DHCR to document the failure of the tenant to 
                         afford access and that the agency was also notified 
                         of two court proceedings begun by the owner to 
                         compel the tenant to give access for repairs.

               The tenant filed a response to the Administrator's notice on 
          November 1, 1990 and stated that the owner's painter had painted 
          over the peeling paint and protruding plaster without scraping it 
          first and after it dried, it began cracking and peeling again.  The 
          tenant acknowledged refusing to sign any work orders because the 
          job had not been completed.

               On November 13, 1990 the owner wrote a letter to the 
          Administrator and stated that it had sent a mailgram to the tenant  
          wherein it had requested that the tenant give access for repairs on 
          November 9, 1990.  The owner's representatives allegedly appeared 
          at the apartment at two different times on the day in question, but 
          could not gain access to the apartment.  

               On January 8, 1991 the tenant wrote a letter to the owner with 
          a copy to DHCR wherein she stated that the owner had agreed to make 
          repairs on December 5, 1990, that she was present on that date and 
          gave access to the owner's representatives, that repairs were made 
          but not completed,  and that the owner is harassing her in its 
          attempts to make repairs.

              The Administrator determined that an additional physical 
          inspection was necessary and ordered one to be conducted.  The 
          inspection was conducted on May 8, 1991 and revealed that the 
          bathroom ceiling was not repaired in a workmanlike manner in that 
          the ceiling had not been scraped prior to painting and had then 
          been sloppily painted.

               The Administrator issued the order here under review on June 
          26, 1991 and affirmed the prior order denying the owner's rent 
          restoration application.

               On appeal the owner, through counsel, states that the 
          Administrator failed to forward to it the response of the tenant 
          wherein it was alleged that there were problems with the repair of 
          the ceiling.  The owner states that it was denied due process of 
          law by this failure. The owner also states that the due process 
          violation was compounded by the failure of the tenant to afford 
          access so that the owner could inspect the repairs.  Finally, the 
          owner states that it has made a good faith effort to make repairs, 
          that the sole remaining condition is in the nature of a minor 
          violation and that it is inequitable to not restore the rent.  The 












          FH110095RO

          owner points out that the tenant has filed numerous complaints with 
          the DHCR in what it characterizes as an attempt to keep from paying 
          her rent.  Attached to the petition are numerous exhibits detailing 
          the history of complaints the tenant has filed with the DHCR as 
          well as the specific history of this proceeding and the owner's 
          attempts to correct the conditions described in the rent reduction 
          order.    

               The tenant filed a response on September 3, 1991 wherein she  
          stated that she had informed the owner on numerous occasions that 
          there was a leak in the bathroom and that merely painting over the 
          ceiling would not correct the problem.  The tenant also reaffirmed 
          that the bathroom ceiling still had not been repaired.
           
               After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               It is clear from the record, including the correspondence 
          between the parties, that the owner was on notice that any repairs 
          made on June 4, 1990 were not done in a workmanlike manner.  In a 
          letter sent by the tenant to the owner and dated January 8, 1991 
          the tenant specifically informed the owner that the repair work in 
          her apartment had not been completed.  The tenant also refused to 
          sign work orders to the effect that the repairs had been made in a 
          workmanlike manner.  It is clear from the long history of this 
          proceeding that the owner has been put on adequate and continued 
          notice that the condition in the bathroom remains uncorrected.

               The Commissioner also finds that the owner has not set forth 
          sufficient facts to document that the tenant has refused to provide 
          access to the apartment.  It is undisputed from the record that the 
          owner has been allowed some access to the apartment and has made 
          repairs.  It is also clear that these repairs were not done in the 
          workmanlike manner which is required in order for a rent reduction 
          application to be granted.  The owner's rent restoration 
          application was properly denied based on a record showing that 
          access had been obtained but the repairs were not done properly.

               With regard to the owner's argument that the remaining 
          condition is minor and that it is inequitable to continue to impose 
          this rent reduction, the Commissioner notes that a rent restoration 
          is not warranted until each condition cited in the rent reduction 
          order has been corrected.  Peeling paint and plaster particularly 
          when caused by an underlying, uncorrected leak is not a minor 
          condition.  The owner is required to investigate the problem, 
          determine the cause of the leak and make workmanlike repairs.  It 
          is clear from the inspection ordered after this proceeding was 
          reopened, that the owner failed to make workmanlike and effective 
          repairs to the bathroom ceiling.  The Administrator was therefore 
          correct in denying the application for rent restoration.  The order 
          here under review is affirmed.







          FH110095RO

               The owner may refile for rent restoration when repairs to the 
          bathroom ceiling have been completed in a workmanlike manner.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to 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 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