ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 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
          APPEALS OF                             DOCKET NOS.:                
                                                 FJ 210160 RO,
                                                 GB 210160 RO   
                                              :
                                                 RENT           
                                                 ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET      
                                                 NOS.: FC 210500 S, 
                                                       FE 210035 S
              383-17 ASSOCIATES,                                    
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                              PETITIONER      :  383 East 17th Street,
          ------------------------------------X  Apt. No. 6H,                
                                                 Brooklyn, New York

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

               The above-named owner filed timely petitions for 
          administrative review of orders issued on September 25, 1991 and 
          January 23, 1992 concerning the housing accommodations relating to 
          the above-described docket numbers, wherein a rent reduction was 
          ordered based on a finding that the owner had failed to maintain 
          required services.

               These petitions are being consolidated pursuant to Section 
          2529.1 of the Rent Stabilization Code because they involve common 
          issues of law and fact.  

               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 these petitions.  

               On March 19, 1991 and May 1, 1991, the tenant filed complaints 
          asserting that the owner had failed to maintain numerous services 
          in the subject apartment.

               In its answers filed on May 30, 1991 and July 17, 1991, the 
          owner asserted that many items are duplicated in the two- 
          complaints; that some of the defective conditions had been repaired 
          completely; and that repairs are being performed on other defective 
          conditions.  The owner submitted copies of work orders signed by 
















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 RO

          the tenant on May 28, 1991 under the statement "The above work has 
          been completed to my satisfaction," referring to repairs to the 
          stove, refrigerator, bathroom sink, windows, intercom, mailbox, 
          front door, hallway walls and removal of soot and mildew in 
          closets.  

               On September 9, 1991, a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported that 
          the hallway ceiling had water stains; that the dining room ceiling 
          had peeling paint and plaster; that the children's room lower right 
          wall had water stains; and that there were mice and roach droppings 
          in the kitchen area.

               On September 25, 1991, the Administrator issued an order under 
          Docket Number FC 210500 S, finding that the owner was not 
          maintaining the aforementioned services and ordering a reduction of 
          the stabilized rent.

               On December 26, 1991, another on-site inspection of the 
          subject apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported 
          that two living room windows were hard to open; that two master 
          bedroom windows were hard to open and were not balanced; that the 
          master bedroom closet wall had mildew stains; and that there were 
          roach and mice droppings observed in the living room and kitchen 
          area.

               On January 23, 1992, the Administrator issued another order 
          under Docket Number FE 210035 S, directing the restoration of 
          services by repairing the master bedroom closet wall and the 
          windows, and ordering a reduction of the stabilized rent.  The 
          finding regarding roach and mice droppings was not included because 
          it was duplicated in the other proceeding.

               In the owner's petitions for administrative review of the 
          September 25, 1991 and January 23, 1992 orders, the owner contends 
          in substance that the orders are unclear, vague and duplicative; 
          that copies of work orders signed by the tenant on May 28, 1991 
          show the tenant's satisfaction with the repairs; that if the 
          conditions as part of normal maintenance had recurred, DHCR and the 
          tenant were obligated to inform the owner of the recurrence; and 
          that once the Administrator had received the signed work orders 
          submitted by the owner, the order appealed from should not have 
          been issued.   

               In answer to the petitions, the tenant denies signing work 
          orders and claims that many conditions have still not been 
          repaired.



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






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 RO


               Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code requires DHCR, 
          upon application by a tenant, to reduce the rent for the period for 
          which it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required 
          services.  Required services are defined by Section 2520.6(r) to 
          include repairs and maintenance.

               In the instant case, the two physical inspections of the 
          subject apartment on September 9 and December 26, 1991 confirmed 
          the existence of defective conditions for which the rent reduction 
          ordered by the Administrator is warranted.  (The parties are 
          advised that even though two rent reduction orders were issued, the 
          rent is reduced by only one guideline adjustment, effective as of 
          the earlier effective date of April 1, 1991 and may not be 
          increased until all conditions cited in both orders are corrected, 
          and DHCR has issued rent restoration orders for both proceedings.) 
           
               The work orders, which the owner claims mandate revocation of 
          the rent reductions, do not refer to all the conditions for which 
          the rent was reduced.  They do not, for example, mention the water- 
          stained areas in the hallway and children's room, or the 
          infestation of mice and roaches.  In addition, these work orders 
          were submitted by the owner, the tenant's signature was never 
          verified and the tenant has denied signing them.  Moreover, even if 
          the tenant did acknowledge certain repairs in May 1991, the 
          physical inspections conducted by DHCR a few months later found 
          evidence of defective conditions, indicating that repairs could not 
          have been done in a workmanlike and effective manner.  

               This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the 
          owner's rights as they may pertain to a de novo application to the 
          Division for a restoration of rents based upon the restoration of 
          services.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code, it is












               ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, 
          denied, and the Administrator's orders be, and the same hereby are, 
          affirmed.













          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NOS.: FJ 210160 RO & GB 210160 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