FI 110186-RO

                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433




          ----------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE     ADMINISTRATIVE  REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FI 110186-RO
                                                  RENT      ADMINISTRATOR'S
                STEPHEN GOLLER/                  DOCKET NO.: 
                HAMILTON HALL REALTY              FB 110136-S
                                                  PREMISES: 
                                                  37-05 88th St., Apt. A-2
                                   PETITIONER     Jackson Heights, NY    
          ----------------------------------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 June 6, 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  February  7,  1991  by
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had fail d  to  main-
          tain numerous services in the subject  apartment  including,  but
          not limited to, evidence of  roaches  and  rats  and  a  bathroom
          window in need of putty.

          In its answer filed on April 1, 1991, the  owner  asserted  inter
          alia that extermination took place in the apartment on March  19,
          1991 and April 16, 1991; and that new windows are to be installed 
          throughout the building as evidenced by a proposed contract  that
          the owner submitted.





          Thereafter on April 29,  1991,  the  subject  apartment  was  in-
          spected by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
          staff member who reported that there is "evidence of  roaches  in
          the kitchen" and that the bathroom window is "in need of putty".

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






          FI 110186-RO

          In this petition, the owner contends without  documentation  that
          "extermination took place in the above-subject premises on  March
          19, 1991 and April 16, 1991," and that t e  bathroom  window  re-
          quires minor repair which does not warrant a rent reduction.

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

          It is noted that the owner had already filed a rent restoration
          application, which was denied by the Administrator  under  Docket
          No. ZFI 11011-OR issued  on  April  29,  1992.   This  Order  and
          Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's rights to file 
          another rent restoration application when all  repairs  are  com-
          pleted.
           
          Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code  requires  DHCR  to
          order a rent reduction, upon application by the tenant, where  it
          is found that the owner h s  failed  to  maintain  required  ser-
          vices.  Section 2520.6(r) defines required  services  to  include
          repairs and  maintenance  as  well  as  all  space  and  services
          provided on the applicable base date or provided or  required  to
          be provided thereafter by applicable law.

          In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed evidence of 
          roach infestation and a defective bathroom window; and  based  on
          these conditions, the rent reduction ordered by the Administrator 
          is warranted and must be affirmed.  The owner submitted no  proof
          to support the allegation that exterminating servic s  were  pro-
          vided and even if such services were provided  on  March  19  and
          April 16, 1991,  they  could  not  have  been  effective  if  the
          inspector found evidence of  roaches  on  April  29,  1991.   The
          bathroom window was also found to be defective  and  if  a  minor
          repair is all that is  required,  as  the  owner  contends,  such
          repair  should  have  been  attended  to  pending  the   proposed
          installation of new windows.

          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