Docket Number: FB 210067-RO
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE : ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: FB 210067-RO
BENSON ASSOCIATES, DRO DOCKET NOS.:
PETITIONER : ZCK 210170-S
ORDER AND OPINION REMANDING PROCEEDING ON APPEAL
On February 8, 1991, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on January 29, 1991,
by the Rent Administrator of the Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, District Rent
Office, concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above
described docket number.
This administrative appeal is being determined pursuant to the
provisions of 2520.6(r) and 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
The issue herein is whether defective conditions upon which an order
was issued reducing the rent have been corrected, warranting
restoration of the legal regulated rent.
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 administrative appeal.
On March 2, 1990, the owner filed an application to restore rent on
the basis of the tenant's unreasonable refusal of access. The owner
alleged that on February 21, 1990, its plumber advised the tenant
that the tenant-installed shower head was improper and caused the
conditions set forth in the original complaint; that this condition
could be corrected by installing an approved shower head; and that
the tenant advised the plumber and the owner's agent that the tenant
would purchase his own shower head and have it properly installed at
On April 27, 1990, the tenant filed an answer, alleging that he was
not offered by the plumber another shower head; that he has since
changed the shower head; and that the problems of extremely varying
water temperature and dirty water are still there.
On November 26, 1990, an inspection of the subject housing
accommodation was conducted by a DHCR inspector who confirmed the
existence of defective conditions.
Docket Number: FB-210067-RO
On January 29, 1991, the Administrator issued an order based on the
inspection, finding that the "shower head cannot be regulated" and
that the "mixer is defective."
In this petition, the owner alleged in substance that the tenant's
refusal of access is unreasonable; that the tenant improperly
installed his own shower head, causing the defective conditions in
the original complaint; and that the plumber advised the tenant that
he could correct this condition by installing an approved shower
head on behalf of the owner, but the tenant refused to allow the
plumber to do same.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
remanded for further processing.
The record shows that the owner submitted below and in this petition
a February 26, 1990 letter from a plumbing service, stating that on
February 21, 1990, a service call was made; that the plumber advised
the tenant at that time that the extreme changes of temperature
during showering are caused by the tenant-installed shower head; and
that this particular shower head has a smaller opening than the
norm, causing the defective changing temperatures. Although the
owner alleges that the tenant refused the plumber's offer to install
an approved shower head, such allegation is categorically denied by
the tenant in answer.
The record also shows that the tenant answered that he was not
offered by the plumber an alternative shower head.
In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner does not find that the
tenant unreasonably refused access. Because the problem still
exists and because the problem is not solved by reimbursing the
tenant the cost of the tenant-installed shower head, this proceeding
is remanded to effect complete and verifiable repair of the defect
in question pursuant to Policy Statement 90-5, "Arranging Repairs"
and "No Access Inspections."
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted to the extent of remanding this proceeding to the District
Rent Administrator for further processing in accordance with this
Order and Opinion. The District Rent Administrator's order
continues in effect until a new order is issued upon remand.