FD120281RT
                                  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.: FD120281RT 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: EJ120073OR       
                    Albert Coriou,
                                                
                                                 
                                 PETITIONER  
          ----------------------------------x                      
                                                                       
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND 
                           MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
                             
               On April 17, 1991, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          April 12, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation know as 94-26 34th Road, Apt. E7, Jackson Heights, 
          N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a partial restoration of the 
          rent that had been reduced under Docket Number AR120188S.

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

               This proceeding was commenced by the filing of an application 
          to restore rent dated October 2, 1990 in which the owner asserted 
          that the services for which the rent reduction order was issued had 
          been restored or that the tenant had prevented access for repairs. 

               In answer to the owner's application, the tenant denied the 
          access issue, stated that the "affected areas were painted on 
          access to management less than a year ago," but added that they had 
          deteriorated again.

               An inspection conducted by a Division employee on March 8, 
          1991 revealed no need of paint or plaster in the bathroom but that 
          both bedrooms required painting and plastering.  Consequently the 
          Administrator issued its order restoring $3.00 of the original 
          $9.00 reduction granted for these conditions.

               In the PAR, the tenant contends that the Administrator's order 
          restoring the rent is in error; that the order restores the rent on 
          the basis that there is no evidence of peeling paint and plaster on 
          the bathroom walls whereas the rent reduction was granted because 












          FD120281RT

          among other things, the bathroom had been plastered but still 
          required painting.

               The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 
          denied but the Administrator's order should be modified to correct 
          an error.

               The record reveals that the rent reduction order described the 
          decreased services in relevant part as follows: There was water 
          stain at the ceiling and walls of the bedrooms (2).  The bathroom 
          was plastered but not painted.

               The order restoring the rent found, based on inspection, that 
          there was no evidence of peeling paint and plaster on the bathroom 
          walls and ceiling.  Taken together with the tenant's statement that 
          management painted the affected areas, the Commissioner finds that 
          the Administrator properly restored the rent for this service.

               The Commissioner notes however that the order restoring the 
          rent incorrectly directs the owner to file for the remaining $6.00 
          after plastering and painting both bathrooms.  This is a 
          typographical error.  This sentence should read, "However, owner 
          may refile for remaining $6.00 after plastering and painting both 
          bedrooms" (emphasis added).

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent 
          and Eviction Regulations, 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, modified in accordance with this order and opinion.



          ISSUED:                                    






                                                  ___________________        
                                                  Joseph A. D'Agosta         
                                                  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