ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 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 APPEAL
          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 FI 110174 RO 
                                              :
                                                 DISTRICT RENT            
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET     
                                                 NO.: EH 110844 S
                      ALDO ARDITO                       
                                                 Subject Premises:          
                                                 34-06 82nd St.,
                                                 Apt. No. 23
                              PETITIONER      :  Jackson Heights, NY
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The  above-named  owner  filed   a   timely   Petition   for
          Administrative Review against  an  order  issued  on  August  22,
          1991, concerning  the  housing  accommodations  relating  to  the
          above-described docket number.

               The Commissioner has reviewed all of  the  evidence  in  the
          record and has carefully considered that portion  of  the  record
          relevant to the issues raised by the administrative appeal.  

               The tenant commenced this proceeding on August 29,  1990  by
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner  failed  to  maintain
          numerous services in the subject  apartment,  namely:   that  all
          windows  need  repairs  because  they  are  unsafe,  broken   and
          defective; that there is rat and roach infestation throughout the 
          apartment; that the bathroom ceiling and walls are peeling  paint
          and plaster; that the faucet in the bathroom sink  has  no  water
          temperature control; that the kitchen floor is "destroyed";  that
          all of the cabinets by the kitchen sink are  rotten  and  broken;
          and that there are holes in the kitchen, through which rats enter 
          the apartment. 

               The Administrator's  file  indicates  that  a  copy  of  the
          tenant's complaint was mailed on October 18, 1990 to the  owner's
          correct address as set forth in the record.


               In his answer filed on November 27, 1990, the  owner  denied
          the allegations as  set  forth  in  the  tenant's  complaint  and
          otherwise asserted that based upon the tenant's revised  list  of
          complaints dated November 7, 1990, repairs were performed to  the
          window locks, the bathroom roof, the bedroom roof and  wall,  the
          glass of the door and the heat in the living room.  

               Attached to the owner's answer were copies of a letter  from






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 RO
          an  exterminator  stating  that  the  apartment  was  treated  on
          November 7, 1992; a contractor's bill dated November 22, 1990 for 
          repairs to the ceiling of the living room and bedroom, the  walls
          of the bathroom and bedroom and the windows and locks; and a bill 
          for repairs to the refrigerator on or about September 1990.  

               Thereafter, the subject apartment was  physically  inspected
          on July 30, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported  that  there
          is visible evidence of roaches and mice; that the  bedroom  walls
          and ceiling are cracked and peeling paint and plaster;  that  the
          kitchen floor is broken and cracked in various  areas;  that  the
          kitchen wall behind the kitchen sink has a large hole;  that  the
          kitchen floor tiles are broken and cracked in various areas; that 
          the bedroom floor has a hole in the center of the room; and  that
          the bedroom wall is cracked in various areas.

               On August 16, 1991, another physical inspection was made  on
          the subject apartment by a  different  DHCR  staff  member.   The
          inspection report added one more defective condition,  i.e.  that
          the bathroom wall by the left side window and above the toilet is 
          peeling paint and plaster. 

               The Administrator directed restoration of these services and 
          a reduction of the stabilized rent.

               In this petition, the owner contends in substance  that  the
          conditions for which the rent was reduced were not  mentioned  in
          the tenant's complaint and that the owner  did  not  receive  the
          inspection report prior to issuance of the Administrator's order. 

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

               As noted above, the tenant's original complaint included the 
          items which were found to be defective on the July 30,  1991  and
          August 16, 1991 inspections.  All the items investigated  by  the
          inspectors were included in the complaint, and the owner has  not
          specified either in the proceeding  below  or  in  this  petition
          which items were not originally complained-of.     



               The owner's claim that the tenant modified the complaint  to
          include only those items cited in the November 7, 1990 letter  is
          not supported by any statement  by  the  tenant  withdrawing  the
          original complaint and is therefore without merit.  

               As to the owner's entitlement to an inspection report, it is 
          noted that due process of law does not require  the  Division  to
          forward copies of its inspection reports to  an  owner  prior  to
          making a determination that  an  owner  has  failed  to  maintain
          required  services.   The  owner  was  fully  informed   of   the
          allegations in the tenant's  complaint  which  was  sent  to  the
          owner, properly addressed, on October 18, 1990 and the owner does 
          not deny receipt of the complaint.  The inspection reports merely 
          confirmed some of the allegations made in the complaint  (Empress
          Manor Apartments v. DHCR, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49, 147 A.D.2d 642).

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the  provisions  of  the  Rent






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 110174 RO
          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