FL 110191-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 110191 RO

     JAGDEO SEWNARINE                   DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: FF 110606 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x


  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On December 23, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  November 22,  1991.  The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations  known as Apt 10  located  at  34-51  9th
Street,  Long  Island City, N.Y. The Administrator order  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 tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of  Complaint  of Decrease in Services on  June 21, 1991  wherein
they alleged the following services deficiencies:

          1.   Defective window caulking
          
          2.   Windows not secure
          
          3.   Apartment in need of painting
          
          4.   Defective electrical installation
          
          5.   Inadequate heating
          
          6.   Problems with mail box
          
          7.  Ceiling falling apart
          
          8.  Defective door lock
          
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded  an opportunity to respond. The owner filed  a  response
which stated that:

          1.   DHCR inspection found window caulking adequate
          
          2.   Windows installed in workmanlike manner
          
          3.   Owner  has supplied tenant paint based on  tenants
               stated wish to paint apartment themselves
          
          4.   Electrical system not defective
          
          5.   Adequate  heat/hot  water  as  found  by   various
               inspections
          
          6.   Tenant  has own individual mail box with own  lock
               and key
          
          7.    Ceiling is not defective and tenants did not make
          complaints with regard to defects
          
          8.   Front door lock repaired when broken
          
      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
subject apartment.  The inspection was conducted on November  20,
1991 and revealed the following:

          1.   Inadequate  caulking  on  all  windows  throughout
               apartment
          
          2.   Kitchen  window sashes do not meet  to  close  and
               lock properly
          
          3.   Kitchen outlets in need of repair
          
          4.   Mailbox not secured
          
          5.   Bedroom  and  kitchen  ceiling  are  cracked  with
               peeling  paint  and  plaster  in  various   areas;
               bathroom ceiling stained
          
          6.   Gap between door and door frame resulting in light
               and air seepage
          
          7.   Apartment bottom door lock defective


The  Administrator ordered a rent reduction based  on  the  above
report.   The order here under review was issued on November  22,
1991 and was effective August 1, 1991.

      On  appeal the owner states that the tenant's complaint was
filed because the owner received a rent increase for installation
of  certain  major capital improvements.  The owner  also  states
that  the  Administrator  failed to  take  the  response  to  the
complaint into consideration and that the order here under review
was  issued without the benefit of an inspection.  The tenant did
not file a response.

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

      It  is apparent from a scrutiny of this proceeding that the
owner's  statements  in the petition are  at  variance  with  the
record.   The  owner did indeed file a response to the  complaint
and  said  response  was  received  on  July  17,  1991  and  was
considered  by the Administrator.  With regard to the  contention
that  an  inspection  was never conducted herein,  the  owner  is
advised  that  a  physical inspection was indeed carried  out  as
fully  described  above and revealed conditions requiring  repair
for  which a rent reduction is warranted.  The owner has not  put
forth  any  grounds  on which to overturn the  order  here  under
review.  That order is, therefore, affirmed.

      The  owner may file for rent restoration when services have
been fully restored.

      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