FL 110161-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.: FL 110161 RO

     MARGARET PECORA                    DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: FA 110379 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On December 24, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  November 20, 1991.   The  order  concerned
housing accommodations known as Apt 4 DL  located at 42-70  156th
Street,  Flushing,  N.Y.   The  Administrator  ordered   a   rent
reduction for failure to maintain required services.

      The  Commissioner  has reviewed the  record  and  carefully
considered  that portion relevant to the issues  raised  by  this
appeal.

      The  tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of  Complaint of Decrease in Services on January 9, 1991  wherein
she alleged the following services deficiencies:

          1.   Failure  to  paint apartment resulting in  peeling
               paint and plaster
          
          2.   Defective front door to apartment
          
          3.   Leak in front hall ceiling due to water buildup on
               roof
          
          4.   Lack of access to circuit breakers; superintendent
               not available to repair
          
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
February 20, 1991 and stated that:

          1.   Apartment painted on February 11, 1991
          
          2.   Owner will investigate front door and ceiling leak
               problems
          
          3.   Circuit   breakers  accessible   through   live-in
               superintendent and/or certain named tenants
          
      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
subject  apartment.  The inspection was conducted on October  22,
1991 and revealed the following:

          1.   Hallway  ceiling  and wall by entrance  door  have
               water stains
          
          2.   Apartment entrance door lock does not work
          
The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.   Apartment has been painted and plastered
          
The  Administrator ordered a rent reduction based  on  the  above
report.  The order here under review was issued November 20, 1991
and was effective February 1, 1991.

      On  appeal the owner states that the apartment was  painted
during  a  five day period ending February 11, 1991.  Since  that
time, new stains have appeared in the front hallway ceiling.  The
owner states that this is a "new problem" requiring the filing of
a new complaint with the appropriate notice and opportunity to be
heard.   The  owner also states that the items mentioned  in  the
order here under review were corrected.

      After  careful  review of the evidence in the  record,  the
Commissioner  is  of  the  opinion that the  petition  should  be
denied.

      The tenant's complaint clearly stated that the problem with
the  hallway ceiling was caused by a buildup of water on the roof
and  the  absence  of adequate drainage.  These  statements  were
sufficient  to put the owner on notice that an investigation  and
possible  repair of the roof was in order.  It is not  a  defense
for the owner to state that, since the apartment was painted, any
new  water  stains  should be the subject  of  a  new  complaint.
Clearly,  the  owner did not effectuate complete and  workmanlike
repairs  to  correct the underlying problem in the  first  place.
With  regard to the owner's statements that all other  conditions
have  been  corrected,  this statement is at  variance  with  the
inspector's  report regarding the door lock.  It is settled  that
the  results of a DHCR inspection are entitled to more  probative
weight  than  the  unsupported  statements  of  a  party  to  the
proceeding.  The order here under review is affirmed.  The  owner
may  file  for  rent  restoration  when  all  repairs  have  been
completed in a workmanlike manner.

      THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and  Code
it is

      ORDERED,  that  this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,
denied, and that the Rent 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