STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.:               
                                                 FI 510237 RO               
                                              :  DISTRICT RENT  
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                
                                                 FD 510743 S
             MATILDA AND MIKLOS KISS                                        
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES: Apt. 64, 
                                                 517 West 169th St., New 
                                                 York, NY 
                              PETITIONERS      : 

               The  above-named  owners  filed  a   timely   Petition   for
          Administrative Review of an order  issued  on  August  30,  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 April  22,  1991  by
          filing a complaint  asserting  that  the  owners  had  failed  to
          maintain numerous services in the subject apartment.

               It appears from the Administrator's  file  that  on  May  2,
          1991, a copy of the tenant's complaint  and  the  owners'  answer
          forms were supposed to have been mailed to the  owner.   However,
          the owners were apparently not served because the tenant  instead
          responded on May 8, 1991 by stating on the forms which the owners 
          would normally use, that defective conditions continue to exist.

               Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the  subject  apartment

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510237 RO
          was conducted on July  23,  1991  by  a  DHCR  staff  member  who
          reported that the oven knob does not ignite the pilot or 
          thermostat in the defective  stove;  that  the  bathroom  ceiling
          leaks and has evidence of water damage; that the west  window  of
          the living room does not close properly, i.e. the top part casing 
          of the lower sash is  not  self-closing;  and  that  the  kitchen
          window sash and frame show air seepage.

               A search of DHCR records shows that the service date on  the
          owners was August 20, 1991; and that in  their  answer  filed  on
          August 26, 1991, the owners denied the allegations as  set  forth
          in  the  tenant's  complaint  and  otherwise  asserted  that  all
          required services are being provided.  The owners further  stated
          that no prior complaint had been received from the tenant,  other
          than a letter from the Legal Aid Society questioning an MCI  rent
          increase; that the tenant was given a new stove  in  1987  as  an
          attached invoice establishes; that the building has  a  new  roof
          and new windows as confirmed by two MCI rent increase orders; and 
          that the tenant caused these defective conditions.  According  to
          the owners,  the  tenant  "permits  her  apartment  to  become  a
          shooting gallery for intravenous drug users", thus  allowing  the
          plumbing to clog due to  "drug  users  flushing  needles,  paper,
          glass vials etc.", and flooding down water from her apartment  to
          the apartments below her.  The owners submitted letters from  the
          Manhattan District Attorney,  listing  other  apartments  in  the
          subject building where  drug  dealing  allegedly  occurred.   The
          owners further submitted a copy of a  letter  dated  October  14,
          1987 addressed to the tenant, warning the tenant of alleged noise 
          and many visitors in the subject apartment.     

               Within four days  of  the  owners'  filing  an  answer,  the
          Administrator issued an order solely based on the July  23,  1991
          physical inspection  directing  restoration  of  services  and  a
          reduction of the stabilized rent.  

               In this petition, the owners  contend  that  they  were  not
          afforded ample  opportunity  to  cure  the  defective  conditions
          because the rent reduction order was issued on August  30,  1991,
          about five days from the August 26, 1991 filing of their  answer;

          and that court stipulations dated August 29, 1991 and September 
          20, 1991 settling a housing court proceeding have  resolved  this
          matter.  In No. 3 of the  September  20,  1991  stipulation,  the
          tenant, represented  by  an  attorney,  acknowledged  repairs  of
          defective conditions which were the basis of the  rent  reduction
          order appealed herein.

               On November 14, 1991, the tenant  filed  an  answer  to  the
          owner's petition, objecting to it  on  the  ground  that  several
          conditions, most of which were  not  mentioned  in  the  original
          complaint, have not yet been repaired. 

               After careful consideration,  the  Commissioner  is  of  the
          opinion  that  the   petition   should   be   granted   and   the
          Administrator's order revoked.

               It appears that the owners were not served with  a  copy  of

          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510237 RO
          the tenant's complaint until August 20, 1991 and that the owners' 
          answer filed on August 26, 1991 is extremely close to the  August
          30, 1991 issuance of  the  order  appealed  from;  and  that  the
          Administrator may not have considered the owners' answer  in  the

               Despite  the  tenant's  objection  to  the   petition,   the
          Commissioner finds that the tenant, represented by  an  attorney,
          acknowledged that all repairs were done in the  copies  of  court
          stipulations dated August 26, 1991 and September 20,  1991.   The
          tenant does not repudiate her signature on the September 20, 1991 
          stipulation or explain the discrepancy between her acknowledgment 
          therein that the owner had completed all repairs and  her  answer
          now that certain repairs are still  required.   Accordingly,  the
          Commissioner finds that the rent  reduction  should  be  revoked,
          and the tenant may  file  an  new  complaint  with  the  Division
          regarding the conditions cited  in  her  answer  if  they  remain

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and 
          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.


                                          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