FH 110330 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.: FH 110330-RO 
                                                
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            SHALIMAR LEASING COMPANY/            DOCKET NOS.: FA 110172-OR
            CHERYL S. JENSEN,                                 ED 110114-OR
                                                              DF 110114-OR
                                                              CK 110330-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 98-23 Horace Harding Expressway
                                PETITIONER       Apt. No. 8A, Rego Park, NY 11368
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on July 17, 1991, concerning the 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.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on January 29, 1991 by  filing
          an application  to  restore  rent  based  on  the  restoration  of
          services.  According to the  owner,  the  "subject  apartment  was
          plastered and painted whenever necessary and no leaks are  present
          in the subject apartment at this time."

          In a reply filed on February 21, 1991, the tenant stated that  she
          had "witnessed the painting on January 21, 1991 .... there was  no
          plastering work done nor leak source been checked  ...  (t)o  date
          water stains have reappeared and painted area is now chipping."

          Thereafter on May 7, 1991, the subject apartment was inspected  by
          DHCR which confirmed that the "closet located hallway entrance  is
          stained and cracked due to past  leaks,"  and  that  "the  ceiling
          above  entrance  hallway  leading  to  bathroom  is  stained   and
          blistered."

          Based on said inspection, the Administrator determined on  January
          17, 1991 that the "(a)partment was  painted  in  an  unworkmanlike
          manner," and directed restoration of these services and  reduction
          of the stabilized rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance  that  work  was
          performed; and that the owner was not notified of  the  recurrence
          of defective conditions after repairs.

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






          FH 110330 RO


          Although the owner answered  in  the  proceeding  below  that  all
          repairs were completed, the tenant replied that work was  done  in
          an unworkmanlike manner:  no  plastering  done,  leak  source  not
          checked,  reappearance  of  water  stains  and   chipping   paint.
          Subsequent inspection confirmed that the tenant was correct.

          The tenant's original complaint is sufficient notice to the  owner
          to effect repairs.  The owner  has  a  duty  to  insure  that  all
          repairs were completed and done  in  a  workmanlike  manner.   The
          inspector's report showed that the claimed  repairs  were  clearly
          inadequate.  Accordingly, the Administrator's order, based on  the
          inspection, properly denied the owner's application.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice  to  the  owner
          filing another application  for  rent  restoration  based  on  the
          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 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