ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 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.:               
                                                 FJ 610133 RO
                                              :
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:              
                                                 FD 610963 S
              OUDHORAM RAGOO                      
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                              PETITIONER      :  3310 Kossuth Ave.,
          ------------------------------------X  Apt. 55                     
                                                 Bronx, NY

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               The above-named owner filed a timely petition for 
          administrative review of an order issued on September 25, 1991 
          concerning the housing 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 26, 1991 by 
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          numerous services in the subject apartment.

               In an answer filed on July 3, 1991, the owner requested "an 
          additional 20 days to complete all repairs."

               In another answer filed on July 17, 1991, the owner explained 
          that the tenant caused a delay in getting the repairs done by 
          refusing access, that the building entrance door is repeatedly 
          vandalized, that cleaning and exterminating services are provided 
          on a routine basis, that the water pressure problem has been 
          repaired, and that all necessary painting and plastering has been 
          done.  The owner submitted a copy of a contractor's June 11, 1991 
          bill indicating that the closet walls and ceiling were plastered 
          and painted and the roof was repaired, and a copy of a statement 
          purportedly signed by the tenant on June 10, 1991 that the ceiling 
          and intercom were fixed to her satisfaction.   














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 RO

               On July 18, 1991, the tenant informed the Division that "the 
          water pressure is bad"; that she is "unable to have steady cold and 
          hot water when the faucet is open"; that the building door is 
          broken and kept unlocked; that "the names do not appear on the 
          directory"; and that "the building is still kept unclean." 

               Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was 
          conducted on September 5, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported 
          that the north closet in the master bedroom is "peeling and water 
          damaged," "evidence of a roof leak"; and that the "bathroom shower 
          mixing valve is defective, water is very difficult to regulate."  

               Based on the inspection, the Administrator ordered a reduction 
          of the stabilized rent.

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner 
          reiterates in substance his answer in the proceeding below, 
          contending that the tenant delayed the repairs; and that on June 
          10, 1991, the tenant signed an acknowledgment of repairs.  The 
          owner submitted copies of the same papers as in the proceeding 
          below.

               In answer, the tenant states that the problems of the leak and 
          the water pressure still exist and that the Administrator's order 
          is correctly based on the physical inspection. 

               After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the 
          opinion that this 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 2520.6(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 copies of the 
          owner's work order form dated June 10, 1991 and the contractor's 
          June 11, 1991 bill do not establish that all repairs were completed 
          in an effective and workmanlike manner.  The record shows that on 



          July 18, 1991, the tenant informed the Division of the continued 
          existence of several defective conditions, including the water 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: FJ 610133 RO

          pressure problem which was not included on any repair bills or work 
          orders and which was confirmed by the subsequent inspector.
          Moreover, if the conditions for which the rent was reduced had in 
          fact been corrected properly in June 1991 as the owner contends, 
          the physical inspection on September 5, 1991 would not have found 
          them to be defective.

               The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application 
          when all repairs are completed.

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

               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
          is, affirmed.

          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