FJ 620078-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 620078-RO             

                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                    OUDHORAM RAGOO,               DOCKET NO.: 
                                                  EJ 620872-S

                                                  PREMISES:
                                                  3310 Kossuth Ave., Apt 53
                                   PETITIONER     Bronx, New York
          ----------------------------------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 September 25, 1991, concerning the 
          housing accommodation 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 October 31, 1990 by filing 
          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain num- 
          erous services in the subject apartment.

          In its answer filed on December 6, 1990, the owner denied the alle- 
          gations as set forth in the tenant's complaint or otherwise 
          asserted that some repairs had been performed and other repairs had 
          been completed.

          Thereafter on September 5, 1991, an in situ inspection of the 
          subject apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported 
          vermin infestation in the kitchen, inadequate cold water pressure 
          in the bathroom shower, peeling paint and plaster on the north wall 
          and the south side ceiling of the living room, and water stains and 
          peeling paint and plaster on the bedroom ceiling.















          FJ 620078-RO



          Based on the inspection, the Administrator determined the following 
          services not maintained and reduced the rent accordingly:


               Vermin control of the apartment         -    $  6.00
               Bathroom water pressure                 -       3.00
               Living room ceiling                     -       5.00
               Bedroom ceiling                         -       5.00   


          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that the tenant 
          refused access to the exterminating company which comes to the 
          building every month and to the contractors who were sent to 
          plaster and paint all necessary areas, and that the tenant wanted 
          a specific paint brand to be used.  The owner submitted a letter 
          from the exterminating company showing that the tenant either 
          refused access or was not at home on every occasion, that the 
          exterminator came between October 1990 and September 1991.  The 
          owner also submitted a request for access dated October 8, 1991, an 
          undated statement by the tenant that repairs were done to correct 
          the bathroom water pressure, and a signed statement dated October 
          10, 1991 by the tenant demanding a certain type of paint.

          In answer, the tenant asserts in substance that she is allergic to 
          the chemicals used by the exterminator but that if the building was 
          kept in a clean condition as before, there would not be an infesta- 
          tion problem.  The tenant also stated that the water pressure in 
          the bathroom has been fixed and that the ceiling problems are 
          caused by a defective roof.

          After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion 
          that this petition should be denied.

          The owner's contentions regarding a refusal of access and the 
          tenant's demand for a certain type of paint were not raised in the 
          proceeding below prior to issuance of the Administrator's order.  
          Accordingly, these issues are beyond the scope of administrative 
          review which is limited to a review of the issues and evidence 
          which were before the Administrator.

          It is also noted that the request for access and the tenant's 
          statement demanding a certain type of paint both post-date the 
          Administrator's order and are, therefore, not relevant to the 
          validity of the order when issued.  It is also apparent that since 
          several conditions complained of were repaired, access is not a 
          substantial problem.



          Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations authorizes the 






          FJ 620078-RO

          Administrator to order a rent reduction based on a finding that 
          there has been a decrease in essential services required to be 
          provided.  Essential services were defined by Section 2200.3 as 
          those services provided on April 30, 1962 which may include repair, 
          decorating and maintenance, the furnishing of light, heat, hot and 
          cold water, telephone, elevator service, kitchen, bath and laundry 
          facilities and privileges, maid service, linen service, janitor 
          service and removal of refuse.  Accordingly, the Commissioner finds 
          that the Administrator's order was correct when issued; that the 
          Administrator properly based his determination on the entire 
          record, including the results of the in situ inspection conducted 
          on September 5, 1991; and that pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the 
          Regulations, the rent reduction ordered by the Administrator was 
          warranted.

          The tenant's statement that the water pressure problem was 
          corrected is undated and therefore does not establish that a rent 
          reduction for this item is unwarranted.  However, inasmuch as the 
          tenant concedes that some repairs have been completed, 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 rent based upon the restoration of services, if the 
          facts so warrant.


          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 
          it is,

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


          ISSUED:



                                                                           
                                                JOSEPH 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