Docket Number: FE 220058-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.: FE 220058-RO 
                                            :  
             WETHEROLE HOLDING CORP.,          DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                               DOCKET NO.: EK 220659-S  
                              PETITIONER    : 
        ------------------------------------X                           
          
           ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

        On May 7, 1991, the above-named owner filed a  timely  petition  for
        administrative  review  of  an  order  issued  on  April  22,  1991,
        concerning t e  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 Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has 
        carefully considered that portion of  the  record  relevant  to  the
        issue raised by the administrative appeal.

        On November 29,  1990,  the  tenant  commenced  this  proceeding  by
        filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed  to  maintain
        certain services in the subject apartment.

        In its answer filed on December  17,  1990,  the  owner  denied  the
        allegations set forth in the tenant's  complaint.   The  owner  also
        asserted that it is attempting to gain access to investigate,  inter
        alia, whether the "the windows need fixing."

        In another letter filed on January 18, 1991, the owner alleged  that
        all required services are now maintained,  except  for  the  windows
        just ordered and to be installed.

        Thereafter on March 12, 1991, an inspection of the subject apartment 
        was conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of 
        defective conditions.

        The Rent Administrator directed on April  22,  1991  restoration  of
        these services and further ordered a reduction of the  stabilization
        rent.

        In its petition for administrative  review,  the  owner  states,  in
        substance, that it was not aware of  the  tenant  complaining  about
        "defective window locks, loose or tight window sashes... or a 







        Docket Number: FE 220058-RO

        missing window screen" and that the tenant itself refused access for 
        the timely installation of new windows.

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

        The record clearly shows that the owner was aware  of  the  tenant's
        complaint concerning the windows.   Receipt  by  the  owner  of  the
        tenant's complaint is sufficient notice.  The owner admitted in  its
        answer below that the "windows need fixing;" and  the  owner  cannot
        now argue that windows do not come with locks, screens, sashes  etc.
        The owner knew or had reason to know that defective windows with all 
        its attachments thereto need to be replaced.   Moreover,  the  owner
        had five months from  service  of  the  tenant's  complaint  to  the
        issuance of the Administrator's order to investigate these defective 
        windows and to repair same, but the owner failed to do so.

        The owner's contention that the tenant  itself  refused  access  for
        the timely installation of new windows is also  without  merit.   In
        the proceeding below, the tenant did allow access for other repairs. 
        As  to  the  new  windows,  even  if  the  tenant  showed  lack   of
        cooperation,  the   owner   submitted   insufficient   evidence   to
        substantiate this  contention  pursuant  to  Policy  Statement  90-5
        "Arranging Repairs/No Access Inspection" either while the proceeding 
        was pending before  the  Administrator  or  by  attachment  to  this
        petition.

        Accordingly, the owner failed to rebut the March 12, 1991 inspection 
        finding decreased services, warranting rent reduction.

        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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby 
        is, affirmed.

        ISSUED:




                                                                      
                                        ELLIOT SANDER
                                        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