FI 110072 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.: FI 110072-RO 
                                             :  
                                             :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            VAN KLEECK ASSOCIATES,           :   DOCKET NO.: FC 110403-S
                                             :
                                             :   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                             :   51-25 Van Kleeck St., Apt. No. 4M
                              PETITIONER     :   Elmhurst, N.Y.  11373
          -----------------------------------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  August  5,  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 March 19, 1991 by filing a 
          complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous 
          services in the subject  apartment,  including  inter  alia  roach
          infestation.  The  complainant-tenant  was  named  and  signed  as
          Narendra Tilani, who stated that she and her  small  children  are
          inconvenienced by the decreased services.

          In its answer filed on  April  17,  1991,  the  owner  denied  the
          allegations set forth in  the  tenant's  complaint  and  otherwise
          asserted that all required services are being provided;  that  the
          tenant only has to contact the owner if repairs have to  be  done;
          and that the tenant never requested for repairs.

          In another answer filed on July 8, 1991, the  owner  alleged  that
          all the requested repairs cited in the complaint had already  been
          done.  The owner submitted a form statement from the  tenant  that
          work had allegedly been completed; the alleged tenant's  signature
          was not a signature but a printed "KAVITA Mrs.  Tilani"  which  is
          dissimilar to the tenant's name and signature of "Narendra Tilani" 
          in the original tenant's complaint.

          The owner filed again on July  22,  1991  a  statement  that  "the
          tenant is happy and satisfied with the maintenance  service  being
          provided and all the necessary work has already  been  completed."
          The owner submitted a prepared, typewritten statement  dated  July
          10, 1991 indicating such tenant's satisfaction and  withdrawal  of
          the complaint, wherein the tenant's signature is  "KAVITA  TILANI"
          and not "NARENDRA TILANI" who signed the original complaint.







          FI 110072 RO


          There is, however, no doubt about  the  subject  premises  and  to
          docket numbers of the order appealed from.

          Thereafter, the subject apartment was inspected on July  25,  1991
          by  a  DHCR  staff  member  who  reported   "evidence   of   roach
          infestation."

          Based  on  said  inspection,   the   Administrator   directed   on
          restoration of services and a reduction of the stabilized rent.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it was  not
          informed of the defective conditions by  the  tenant;  that  these
          conditions "were immediately attended to" when DHCR  informed  the
          owner;  that  the  tenant  withdrew  the  complaint   before   the
          inspection and the order's issuance; and that the  conditions  are
          minor, not warranting a rent reduction.

          It appears from the  Administrator's  file  that  a  copy  of  the
          owner's petition was mailed to the tenant on October 17, 1991.

          On April 3, 1992,  the  tenant(s)  (Narendra/Kavita  Tilani)  were
          requested by the Division to authenticate their signature  in  the
          alleged withdrawal of the complaint signed by "Kavita Tilani"  and
          an alleged, completed work order signed also by  "Kavita  Tilani."
          Said letter to the tenants  states  that  "(f)ailure  to  file  an
          answer within twenty days from the date appearing on  this  notice
          (i.e. April 3, 1992) shall be considered a default and may  result
          in a determination  based  on  the  record  presently  before  the
          agency."  The time limit has expired and  the  tenant(s)  has  not
          responded to the Divisions' request.

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

          The record establishes that the owner was notified of the tenant's 
          complaint and  that  in  response  thereto,  the  owner  performed
          repairs in the subject apartment.  The tenant(s)  "Tilani"  appear
          to have been satisfied with the repairs.   However,  the  tenant's
          statement that work was completed and that the complaint should be 
          withdrawn in view thereof was signed by  a  "Kavita"  Tilani,  not
          Narendra Tilani who signed the original complaint.  Despite  ample
          opportunity to the tenant(s) in the  subject  premises  to  verify
          their signatures in the  owner-submitted  documents,  the  tenants
          defaulted and the Commissioner shall make  a  determination  based
          on the present record.






          FI 110072 RO


          Certainly, physical inspection revealed that the owner  failed  to
          address all the defective conditions enumerated  in  the  tenant's
          complaint.  Roach infestation existed in the subject apartment  of
          the Tilani's, regardless of whether "Kavita" and "Narendra" signed 
          the prepared typewritten statement that work was completed and the 
          complaint should be withdrawn.  This infestation is  not  a  minor
          matter, but a decreased service warranting a rent reduction.

          It is noted that a finding of decreased services attaches  to  the
          subject apartment and not to the resident(s) thereof.  A  copy  of
          this Order and Opinion shall be mailed to the present  resident(s)
          of this apartment.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenant(s)' withdrawal 
          of the complaint in the proceeding below is not sufficiently clear 
          to rebut the findings of the July 25, 1991 on-site inspection.

          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
                                          Acting 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