ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510258 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 510258 RO
DISTRICT RENT
: ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.:
FE 510661 S
RUCKMAN MANAGEMENT, INC./
SUSAN WEINSTEIN SUBJECT PREMISES:
Apt. 18, 150 Haven Ave.,
New York, NY 10032
PETITIONER :
------------------------------------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 August 29, 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 May 22, 1991 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to
maintain numerous services in the subject apartment, and
requesting a rent reduction.
In its answer filed on June 20, 1991, the owner alleged that
upon receipt of the tenant's complaint, all work listed by the
tenant was completed; and that the tenant acknowledged the work
order by signing same. The tenant's signature appears at the
bottom of the answer form and the owner asserts that this proves
that the work was done.
Thereafter, an on-site inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted on July 23, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who
reported that the refrigerator has a defective gasket which
increases the refrigerator's temperature above acceptable levels;
that the stove's two left burners have defective pilot lights;
that the stove has rusted spots and the oven shows loose hinges;
that the sink faucet is leaking and loose; that there are
inoperative locks on the kitchen cabinet; and that there is
ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FI 510258 RO
evidence of roaches in the kitchen.
Based on this inspection, the Administrator directed
restoration of services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized
rent.
In this petition, the owner contends that the order should
be reversed because the tenant signed a statement that all work
was completed.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that the petition should be denied.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR
to reduce the rent, upon application by the tenant, based upon a
finding that the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.5(r) to include all
services which the owner was maintaining or was required to
maintain on the applicable base date plus additional services
provided or required to be provided thereafter by applicable law.
In the instant case, the physical inspection confirmed the
existence of defective conditions cited in the tenant's complaint
and, based on this inspection, the rent reduction ordered by the
Administrator was warranted.
The owner's petition does not present any basis for revoking
the appealed order. The tenant's signature on the owner's answer
form without any accompanying statement does not in any way
indicate that the tenant was acknowledging that repairs had been
completed. Moreover, if the conditions complained of by the
tenant had in fact been corrected by June 1991 as the owner
contends, the physical inspection on July 23, 1991 would not have
revealed so many items in need of repair.
The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application
when all repairs are completely done.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review be,
and the same hereby is, denied, and that the order of the Rent
Administrator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
ISSUED:
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner
|
