Docket Number: FH 110106-RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: FH 110106-RO  
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
             ESTATES INC.,                       DOCKET NO.: FD 510549-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 87-50 167th St., Apt. No. 9D
                                PETITIONER       Jamaica, NY 11432


          On August 2, 1991, the above-named owner filed  a  timely  petition
          for administrative review of an  order  issued  on  July  1,  1991,
          concerning t e  housing  accommodations  relating  to  the   above-
          described docket number.  

          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 petition.

          On April 19, 1991, the tenant commenced this proceeding  by  filing
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
          services  in  the  subject  apartment,  namely,  that  "the   whole
          apartment has smoked, stained (and) smelled due to a  fire  in  the
          building in ... March 1991"; that there are leaks in  the  "kitchen
          overhead, bathroom overhead and middle of  living  room  overhead";
          that "(t)he apartment walls and ceiling are very dirty"; that  "the
          windows do not work and some  are  broke";  that  there  is  rodent
          infestation and the building is "dirty."

          In its  answer  filed  on  May  15,  1991,  the  owner  denied  the
          allegations set forth  in  the  tenant's  complaint  and  otherwise
          asserted that the tenant's apartment was not affected in any way by 
          the fire; that the owner put the tenant on notice  of  a  clean  up
          work due to the fire, extermination service and routine maintenance 
          services, but the tenant "did not avail" herself of said services.

          Thereafter on June 6, 1991, the subject apartment was inspected  by
          D.H.C.R. which confirmed the existence of defective conditions.

          Based on said inspection, the Administrator  directed  on  July  1,
          1991 restoration of these services and further ordered a  reduction
          of the stabilized rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all required 
          repairs were performed on June 9, 1991 and completed  on  July  10,
          1991; that the tenant did not avail herself of the clean-up service 
          after  the  fire  the  extermination  service  and  other   routine
          maintenance services; that "painting is outside the  ambit  of  the

          Docket Number: FH 110106-RO

          tenant's complaint; and that it should have (and in fact  did  not)
          receive the inspection results.

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

          The owner's petition offers a  vague  and  insufficient  reason  to
          disturb the Administrator's order, which is based on an  inspection
          disclosing the complained-of conditions, warranting rent reduction. 
          If the owner contends that repairs had been made before  the  order
          was issued, then the owner's contention 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  said
          order reducing the rent  was  correct  when  issued.   The  owner's
          allegation of repairs after the order's issuance and not  submitted
          below is beyond  the  scope  of  administrative  review,  which  is
          limited to the issue and evidence before the Administrator.

          Administrative policy and precedent do not require that an owner be 
          served with a  copy  of  the  inspection  report.   The  owner  had
          received and answered the  tenant's  complaint  in  the  proceeding
          below.  Regardless of whether the tenant  availed  herself  of  the
          services for the subject apartment and the building or whether  the
          owner  should  receive  the  inspection  results,  the  owner   had
          sufficient notice to investigate the tenant's complaint and  to  do
          necessary repairs prior to  the  issuance  of  the  Administrator's
          order.  However, the owner failed to do so.

          It is noted that if the tenant's  complaint  speaks  about  "dirty"
          walls and ceiling, "leaks" ... "overhead", "smoked" and  "stained,"
          and inspection  confirmed  the  existence  of  "peeling  paint  and
          plaster" and "walls and ceiling throughout apartment in need ... of 
          painting", then painting is  "within  the  ambit  of  the  tenant's
          complaint" and the owner was properly directed by the Administrator 
          to also restore this service.

          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.


                                          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