ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 220166 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 220166 RO
:
DISTRICT RENT
ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
NO.: EA 220213 S
ILYA AND BORIS ZLOBINSKY
SUBJECT PREMISES:
7122 Fort Hamilton
Parkway, Apt. No. 1F,
Brooklyn, NY 11228
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------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 September 4, 1991,
concerning the housi g 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 petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on January 18, 1990 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner refuses to paint his
apartment, that the bathroom light fixture requires repair, and
that the bathroom ceiling is water damaged.
In an answer filed on February 15, 1990, the owner asserted
that painting is not a required service included in the rent for
this rent controlled apartment; that this apartment is a
professional apartment; and that the tenant acknowledged painting
his apartment through the years. The owner further asserted that
he repaired all other complained-of conditions, submitting a paid
bill for installation for a new pullchain switch in the bathroom.
On May 13, 1991, the Administrator inquired of the tenant
if the subject premises is being used as a professional office or
as a primary residence; and if used as a primary residence, to
indicate if painting was always a service provided by the owner.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 220166 RO
The tenant was requested to submit supporting evidence.
On May 22, 1991, the tenant replied to the Administrator's
request by asserting that the apartment is his primary residence
and that he did his own painting. The tenant enclosed gas and
electric bills and a letter from the VA Hospital where he was
treated in 1979 for a heart attack, all bearing the subject
address. Although the tenant refers to a "bill for painting last
year," the Administrator's file does not contain this item. The
tenant further stated that "in the spring, water from the
radiator upstairs had flooded my living-room, causing plaster to
fall down and discolor the walls."
Thereafter on July 9, 1991, a physical inspection was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that the bathroom
ceiling had collapsed, exposing wooden slats.
Based on the inspection report, the Administrator's order
issued on September 4, 1991 directed restoration of services and
reduced the maximum legal rent by $5.00 per month effective on
the first rent payment day following the issuance of the order.
The Administrator also determined that based on the evidence of
record, no painting practice has ever been established by the
tenant and the owner; that painting therefore is not a required
service and this issue is hereby dismissed.
On September 12, 1991, after issuance of the Administrator's
order, the tenant submitted a statement dated August 25, 1991
that "the bathroom ceiling has been replaced and repainted."
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that
repairs were performed and submits a copy of the tenant's August
25, 1991 statement that the bathroom ceiling had been replaced
and repainted.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that this petition should be granted and the
Administrator's order should be revoked.
The Administrator's order was correctly based on the
evidence of record, including the physical inspection which
confirmed the tenant's allegation that the bathroom ceiling
required repairs. However, the tenant has advised that this
condition was repaired before the order was issued. Since the
instant rent reduction was prospective in accordance with Section
2202.2 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations and there is no
dispute that the repairs were completed before the effective date
of the reduction, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
order should be revoked.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction
Regulations 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.
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 220166 RO
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|