FH 210275 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 210275 RO 
                                                
                                                 DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            WILMAUD REALTY CORP./PETER SHAW,     DOCKET NOS.: ZBJ 210733-S
                                                              BJ 210733-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 305 MARTENSE ST., APT. NO. 2G
                                PETITIONER       BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11226
          ----------------------------------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 24, 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 tenant commenced the original proceeding below on October  28,
          1987 by filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed  to
          maintain certain services in the subject apartment.

          The owner was informed of the tenant's complaint in November 1987, 
          but failed to respond promptly.

          DHCR  inspected  the  subject  apartment  on  January  11,   1988,
          disclosing numerous defective conditions.

          In its answer filed on February 15, 1988, the owner asserted  that
          "(a)ll necessary repairs in the apartment ha(d) been made."

          On May 15, 1988, the tenant wrote DHCR that the  complaint  "ha(d)
          not been resolved."

          Thereafter, various inspections were scheduled but appear  not  to
          have occurred.   The  record  only  reveals  a  January  11,  1988
          inspection as stated above.

          Based on  the  January  11,  1988  inspection,  the  Administrator
          issued on July 20, 1988 the first order, directing restoration  of
          services and reduction of the stabilized rent  effective  February
          1, 1988.






          FH 210275 RO

          On a September 20, 1988, the tenant filed an Affirmation of Non-
          Compliance with DHCR.

          Inspection requests  appear  to  have  been  made  at  this  time.
          However, no inspection was made then.

          In  September  1989,  DHCR  informed  the  owner  to  address  the
          complained-of conditions, while DHCR also inquired from the tenant 
          as to the status of the case.  The record  shows  no  response  to
          these letters.

          DHCR again sent on April 16, 1990 inquiry letters to  the  parties
          involved.

          The owner filed an answer on June 27,  1990,  indicating  that  it
          spent "a considerable sum of money upgrading  and  renovating  the
          building," including the subject apartment.

          This apartment was inspected on August  15,  1990  by  DHCR  which
          confirmed the existence of numerous defective conditions.

          On July 24, 1991, the Administrator directed restoration of  these
          services   and   reduction   of   the   stabilized   rent.     The
          Administrator's order reflected the effective date of February  1,
          1988, voiding and superseding the previous order  under  the  same
          above-described docket number issued on July 20, 1988.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that repairs had 
          been completed after the August 15, 1990 inspection and  prior  to
          issuance of the Administrator's  order;  and  that  the  owner  is
          attending to other tenant's complaints.

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

          Although the owner contends that repairs had been completed  after
          the inspection and prior to issuance of the Administrator's order, 
          the  owner  failed   to   raise   this   contention   before   the
          Administrator.  The owner had twelve months after  the  inspection
          to inform the Administrator of these alleged repairs; but  despite
          due notice, the owner failed to do so.  The owner now raises  this
          self-serving contention for the first time on appeal.  Thus,  this
          contention is beyond the scope of review which is limited  to  the
          issues and evidence before the Administrator.

          The owner had been duly notified of the  complained-of  conditions
          since November 1987, but the owner failed to  resolve  the  matter
          inspite  of  numerous  inquiry  letters.   An  August   15,   1990
          inspection disclosed that services  had  not  yet  been  restored.
          Accordingly,  the  Administrator  had  properly  determined   that
          inspection found decreased services, warranting rent reduction.  








          FH 210275 RO

          The Commissioner notes that in this  petition,  the  owner  admits
          that repairs are still being made and  not  yet  completed.   This
          Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner  filing
          an 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