FL 120189-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 120189 RO

       KARY MIHAILIDES                  DISTRICT RENT
                                        ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET
                                        NO.: FH 120611 S
                        PETITIONER
----------------------------------x

  ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                
      On December 30, 1991 the above named petitioner-owner filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator  issued  December 19,  1991.  The  order  concerned
housing  accommodations known as Apt 3A  located  at  24-17  28th
Street,  Astoria, 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  tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of  Complaint of Decrease in Services on August 19, 1991  wherein
she alleged the following services deficiencies:

          1.   Kitchen  sink  faucet, bathroom  sink  faucet  and
               bathroom tub faucet leak
          
          2.   Kitchen window frame badly corroded
          
          3.   Water seepage around bedroom window
          
          4.   Light   fixture  on  bathroom  ceiling  improperly
               rigged
          
      The  owner  was  served with a copy of  the  complaint  and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
September  6, 1991 and stated that the tenant had refused  access
to  the  owner  on three different occasions.  The owner  claimed
that  a  certified letter was sent to the tenant requesting  that
access  be  provided.  A copy of that letter,  dated  August  27,
1991, was annexed to the answer.

      The  Administrator  ordered a physical  inspection  of  the
subject  apartment.  The inspection was conducted on October  31,
1991 and revealed the following:

          1.   Kitchen hot water faucet leaking
          
          2.   Plumbing bathroom hot water faucet leaking
          
          3.   Kitchen window frame worn out.  Top/bottom  sashes
               do not meet to lock window.  Lock inoperative. Top
               sash needs adjustment
          
          4.   Bedroom window frame worn out.  Bottom sash  loose
               and lock inoperative
          
          5.   Right side of bedroom wall cracked.
          
          6.   Plumbing in bathroom sink leaking
          
The following services were found to have been maintained:

          1.   No  evidence  of  defective  plumbing  in  bathtub
               faucet
          
          2.   No evidence of vermin infestation in apartment
          
          3.   No evidence of hole in wall under kitchen sink
          
The inspector noted that the owner and tenant were present at the
time of the inspection.

      On  November 20, 1991 the Administrator sent the  tenant  a
notice requesting information regarding whether repairs had  been
made  by  the owner.  The tenant filed a response on December  4,
1991 and stated that the following had not been repaired: kitchen
sink, kitchen window frame and bedroom window.

      The  Administrator ordered a rent reduction of  $25.00  per
month  based on the above report.  The order was issued  December
19,  1991.   The Commissioner notes that the owner has filed  for
rent restoration.  Said application is currently pending with the
DHCR.

      On appeal the owner states that the tenant did not give any
notice of the conditions that were cited in the order here  under
review.  Petitioner states that the first notice came from a  New
York  City building inspector, who was called to investigate  the
alleged  conditions  in the tenant's apartment.   The  petitioner
stated  that,  despite stated willingness to  make  repairs,  the
tenant  refused  to  cooperate.  Based on  the  tenant's  alleged
failure  to cooperate and the alleged lack of notice,  the  owner
requests reversal of the order here under review

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

      The  Commissioner rejects the owner's contention  regarding
lack  of notice of the conditions cited in the complaint.  It  is
settled  that  the filing of a complaint of failure  to  maintain
services  puts the owner on adequate notice of the  existence  of
the  conditions and the necessity of making repairs.   The  owner
was  served  with  a copy of the complaint and  filed  a  lengthy
response  thereto.  Accordingly, the owner cannot now claim  lack
of notice.

      With  regard to the owner's claims regarding  the  lack  of
cooperation  by  the  tenant,  the Commissioner  notes  that  the
inspection conducted on November 31, 1991 was of the "no  access"
type.   Both parties were directed to be present at the apartment
and  the  owner was directed to have repair persons  present  and
ready  to attend to repairs.  When the inspector arrived  at  the
apartment,  the tenant provided access to both the inspector  and
the  owner.  Since the tenant met the access requirement  of  the
DHCR, the owner's statement is without merit.

      With  regard to the owner's claims that repairs  have  been
made,  they are at variance with the report of the inspector  and
the  tenant's  December 4, 1991 response to  the  Administrator's
inquiry.   It  is settled that the report of a DHCR inspector  is
entitled   to   more  probative  weight  than   the   unsupported
allegations of a party to the proceeding.

     THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City 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