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




                                                    

    

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