FH 410167 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 410167 RO 
                                                
            GREG SCHUBERT/                       DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            SOLIL MGMT. CORP.,                   DOCKET NO.: EK 410371-S

                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                 106 East 81st Street, Apt. No.4D
                              PETITIONER         New York, NY 10028
          ----------------------------------X                           
            
            ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                         AND REVOKING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on June 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 this  proceeding  on  November  13,  1990  by
          filing  a  complaint  asserting  that  the  tenant  moved  in  the
          apartment on April 1, 1989 and now has a current  lease;  that  at
          the time, the rental agent and  building  superintendent  verbally
          told her that her apartment is rented with a  "supposedly  working
          fireplace"; and that in fact, the fireplace does not work  and  is
          merely decorative.

          In his answer filed on December 18, 1990, the owner asserted  that
          the fireplace in Apartment #4D  is  merely  decorative;  that  the
          tenant knew that the owner is not responsible  for  the  fireplace
          when she signed the lease.

          The tenant was informed on April 24, 1991 of  the  owner's  answer
          and was requested to verify from other parties that the  fireplace
          works and that other  apartments  in  the  building  have  working
          fireplaces.

          In her response dated April 29,  1991,  the  tenant  submitted  an
          unsworn statement from a tenant of Apartment  #3B,  alleging  that
          when she moved  in,  the  fireplace  in  Apartment  #3B  works  as
          promised.

          On May 10, 1991, the owner was informed of the  tenant's  response
          and was requested to answer same.  
          In his answer filed on May 28, 1991, the owner reiterated  that  a
          functioning fireplace was never a part of the lease of the  tenant
          of  Apartment  #4D;  that  the  "D"  line,  wherein  the  tenant's
          Apartment #4D belongs, never had working fireplaces; that  he  did
          suggest to the tenant to request another apartment with a  working






          FH 410167 RO

          fireplace because the New York City Fire  Department  ordered  the
          fireplaces at the "D" line closed-off; that the statement  of  the
          tenant of Apartment #3B shows that the "D" line had no functioning 
          fireplaces because the tenant of Apartment #3B  used  to  live  in
          Apartment #1-D and upon her request was transferred out of the "D" 
          line of apartments.

          The owner also submitted a notarized statement from  his  building
          superintendent who denied the tenant's allegations  and  otherwise
          asserted that it is his standard practice to tell all tenants  and
          prospective tenants  to  the  "D"  line  of  apartments  that  the
          "apartment fireplaces do not work as they are  bricked-up  at  the
          roof and sealed off."

          Based on the determination that  the  fireplace  is  a  base  date
          service that was discontinued  by  the  owner,  the  Administrator
          directed  restoration  of  this  service  and  reduction  of   the
          stabilized rent.

          In this  petition,  the  owner  contends  in  substance  that  the
          fireplaces in Apartment #4D and the entire "D" line of  apartments
          have always been ornamental and never usable as  fireplaces  since
          prior to the stabilization base date of May 31, 1968; that a  rent
          controlled tenant of Apartment #5D since April 24, 1968 signed  an
          affidavit to that effect; that the same applies to Apartment  #4D,
          which was continuously occupied by a rent-controlled  tenant  from
          October 1, 1940 through March 31, 1989 and which was rented to the 
          complaining tenant on April 1, 1989 to date; and that  the  tenant
          waited almost two years to file  a  decreased  services  complaint
          about a non-functioning fireplace after she acknowledged that  the
          fireplace was merely decorative in her vacancy lease.

          In reply, the tenant alleges that before signing  the  lease,  she
          was verbally promised a working fireplace by the rental agent.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is  of  the  opinion
          that this petition should be granted and the Administrator's order 
          revoked.

          The record shows  that  the  subject  apartment  was  continuously
          occupied by a rent-controlled tenant from October 1, 1940  through
          March 31, 1989 and that the  complaining  tenant  took  over  from
          April 1, 1989 to date.  A rent-controlled tenant of Apartment  #5D
          since  April  24,  1968  signed  an  affidavit  stating  that  the
          fireplace in  her  apartment  had  never  been  usable  since  her
          occupancy.  Also, a tenant  of  Apartment  #3B  used  to  live  in
          Apartment #1D, which  has  no  working  fireplace;  and  upon  her
          request for a functioning fireplace, she was transferred out 






          FH 410167 RO

          of the "D" line  of  apartments.   Accordingly,  the  Commissioner
          finds that the fireplaces in Apartment #4D and  the  "D"  line  of
          apartments  have  been  merely  decorative  and  never  usable  as
          fireplaces since prior to the stabilization base date of  May  31,
          1968.

          The tenant's allegation that she  was  verbally  promised  by  the
          rental agent a working fireplace is  without  merit.   The  tenant
          signed a lease acknowledging that the fireplace is not  guaranteed
          to work as such.  In addition, the tenant took almost two years to 
          file a decreased services  complaint  after  signing  the  vacancy
          lease containing the same provision about the fireplace.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby  is,  granted,
          and that the Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby  is,
          revoked.

          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