FL 210060-RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ----------------------------------x     S.J.R. NO.: 6442
          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:   
                                                  FL 210060-RO
                    SLOCUM REALTY CORP.,          ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:    
                                   PETITIONER     FE 210301-OR


          On December 17, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely petition 
          for administrative review of an Administrator's order issued on 
          November 13, 1991 concerning the housing accommodation known as 
          Apt. B-6, 10 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, New York.  Subsequent 
          thereto, the owner filed a petition pursuant to Article 78 of the 
          Civil Practice Law and Rules seeking an expeditious determination 
          of its petition for administrative review.  On July 30, 1992, the 
          Supreme Court, Kings County ordered the Division to issue a deter- 
          mination on or before October 30, 1992.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the petition.

          The owner commenced this proceeding on May 8, 1991, by filing an 
          application to restore rent.  The owner stated in the application 
          that the tenant's complaints were taken care of in November and 
          December 1985.  The application further states that the rent 
          reduction order (KS 003704-S) was never received by the owner and 
          the restoration application is being filed only because on the 
          March 20, 1989, the owner received a copy of a letter sent to the 
          tenant by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) 
          advising him that the Compliance case was closed because the tenant 
          had advised that all repairs had been made.

          In an answer filed on July 18, 1991, the tenant alleged in 
          substance that the owner's "repairs were temporary and reflect poor 
          workmanship"; that the master bedroom leaks again; that the 
          "bathroom walls and ceiling contain much mildew and mold, even 
          mushrooms are growing out of the ceiling"; that he personally gave 
          to the owner the rent reduction order (Docket No. KS 003704-S); and 
          that rent should not be restored until repairs are of a permanent 

          FL 210060-RO

          Thereafter, an in situ physical inspection of the subject apartment 
          was conducted on October 11, 1991, by a DHCR staff member who 
          reported that the bathroom walls and ceiling are blistered, dis- 
          colored and peeling paint and plaster due to leaks from above.

          Based on the October 11, 1991 inspection, the Administrator denied 
          the owner's application for rent restoration.

          In this petition, the owner contends in substance that on February 
          21, 1986, the owner received from the Division a copy of a tenant's 
          complaint under Docket No. KS 003704-S; that it promptly did 
          repairs and informed the Division accordingly; that it had believed 
          the matter closed until it received a letter from the Compliance 
          Bureau dated March 16, 1989 stating that the owner had complied 
          with the directives in the Administrator's order under Docket No KS 
          003704-S and advising the owner to file a rent restoration 
          application; that on March 20, 1989, the owner filed an application 
          to restore rent in accordance with the Division's advice; that the 
          Administrator did not assign a docket number to that application 
          and failed to process the March 1989 rent restoration application 
          for more than two years; that on May 6, 1991, the owner filed a 
          second restoration application which was assigned the above- 
          described docket number (FE 210301-OR); that in July 1991, a leak 
          occurred in the bathroom of Apt. C-6, which is directly above the 
          subject apartment; that the leak in Apt. C-6 resulted in a water 
          leak in the subject apartment and caused some paint and plaster to 
          peel in the subject apartment; that in July 1991, the owner's 
          plumber corrected the leak in Apt. C-6; that immediately there- 
          after, the owner's painting contractor contacted the tenant to 
          arrange for painting and plastering of the apartment; that upon the 
          tenant's request, the work was delayed until the tenant was 
          satisfied that the walls were dry; and that as a result of this 
          delay the work was completed on November 21, 1991, subsequent to 
          the November 13, 1991 issuance of the Administrator's order.

          Attached to the owner's petition were the following relevant sub- 

          1.   The March 16, 1989 letter from the Compliance Bureau 
               stating that the owner had complied with the directives 
               of the 1986 rent reduction order under Docket No. KS 
               003704-S and advising the owner to apply for rent 

          2.   A rent restoration application dated March 20, 1989 which 
               the owner claims it filed but did not receive a docket 

          FL 210060-RO

          3.   A copy of an invoice dated July 22, 1991 from the owner's 
               plumbing contractor who allegedly repaired the leak in 
               Apt. C-6, the apartment directly above the subject apart- 
               ment, which was causing the peeling paint and plaster in 
               the subject apartment;

          4.   A copy of a statement from the owner's painting con- 
               tractor stating that he contacted the tenant of the 
               subject apartment for painting and plastering, but was 
               able to complete the work only subsequent to the issuance 
               of the order because the tenant asked that the work be 
               delayed until the walls were dry.

          The owner also alleges non-receipt of the Administrator's original 
          rent reduction order and states that in July 1986, it "moved its 
          offices from 16 Court Street, Brooklyn, New York to 10 Ocean 
          Parkway, Brooklyn, New York."

          In answer to the petition, the tenant again asserts that he 
          personally notified the owner of the rent reduction order, that the 
          leaks were corrected 20 or 30 times but not permanently and that 
          the owner has not established that an earlier rent restoration 
          application was filed.

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

          A review of the record reveals that the Rent Administrator's rent 
          reduction order was sent on October 14, 1986 to the address 
          registered by the owner on the 1986 Registration Statement.  Since 
          mail is generally forwarded by the Post Office for one year, the 
          owner's assertion that it moved its office in July 1986 would not 
          result in non-receipt of the order.  There is also no indication 
          that the owner notified the administrator of the change of address.  
          The Division's records further reveal that the owner did not file 
          a petition for administrative review of that order, even after 
          becoming aware of its existence.

          With regard to the merits of the denial of the rent restoration, 
          the Commissioner finds that the owner has not established that the 
          conditions for which the rent was reduced were repaired.  The owner 
          asserted in the rent restoration application that repairs to 
          correct the chronic leak condition complained of by the tenant were 
          made in November and December 1985 but a subsequent DHCR inspection 
          in June 1986 revealed leak damaged walls and ceilings in the 

          FL 210060-RO

          bathroom and it was this condition that was cited as the basis for 
          the rent reduction that was ordered on October 14, 1986.  The 

          FL 210060-RO

          tenant advised on November 8, 1986 that no repairs had been made.  
          On November 10, 1987, the tenant submitted a statement asserting 
          that while some work had been done, water leaks continued to damage 
          the master bedroom and bathroom ceilings.  Since the tenant 
          concedes that some repairs were done, the owner was clearly on 
          notice of the conditions in the tenant's apartment.  

          Although the tenant advised DHCR on March 15, 1989 that the owner 
          had complied with the directive to repair, the Division's letter 
          clearly stated that the owner would have to file a rent restoration 
          application and that the rent would not be restored until so 
          ordered by DHCR.  The tenant's statement that repairs had been 
          completed, which was later repudiated when the repairs proved to be 
          ineffective, does not establish that restoration of the rent is 
          warranted.  Even if the owner did file a rent restoration 
          application in March 1989 there is no evidence to indicate that 
          that application would have been granted.  The tenant's oral 
          statement to the Compliance Unit would not have formed a sufficient 
          basis to warrant restoration.

          The owner has not submitted any evidence to show that repairs were 
          done before the order appealed herein was issued.  In fact, the 
          statement by the owner's painting contractor confirms that the 
          necessary painting was not completed until November 1991.  The 
          owner's contention that the leak damage observed in the October 11, 
          1991 inspection was a new condition caused by a recent plumbing 
          problem is not credible given the tenant's contention of repeated 
          leak damage since he first took occupancy in 1977, and the absence 
          of any evidence submitted by the owner to show repairs after the 
          condition was confirmed in the June 4, 1986 inspection.

          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, 


                                                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