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.: FF 110290-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.: DK 110014-S
ANGELO & LILIANA BANCIC,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 19, 1991 the above-named petitioner filed an Administrative Appeal
against an order issued on May 15, 1991 by the District Rent
Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica, New York, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 43-15 44th Street, Queens, New York
The Administrative Appeal is being determined pursuant to the provisions
of 9 NYCRR 2520.6(r) and 9 NYCRR 2523.4.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator properly
determined the tenant's complaint of decreased services.
A review of the record reveals that on November 1, 1989, the tenant filed
a complaint wherein she stated, "Door Frame has to be completely changed,
I've been Burglarized over 3 times because of it."
The owners filed an answer November 30, 1989 wherein they stated that the
apartment was only burglarized once and that entry was obtained by
breaking the locks.
The owners stated that they replaced the lock but not the frame. The
owners stated that in their opinion the frame was not defective.
The subject apartment was inspected on May 3, 1991 by an inspector who
submitted a written report confirming that there was "evidence of cracks
between Apartment door frame and wall. Door frame is loose."
On May 19, 1991 the District Rent Administrator issued the order appealed
herein. The District Rent Administrator's order reduced the rent for the
subject apartment to the level in effect prior to the last rent guidelines
increase which commenced before the effective date of the order, such rent
reduction being effective as of December 1, 1989, the first rent payment
date after the Division informed the owner of the tenant's complaint.
The order was based upon the above mentioned inspection which revealed:
Evidence of cracks between apartment door frame and wall, door frame is
DOCKET NUMBER: FF 110290-RO
On appeal, the petitioner-owners allege that the District Rent
Administrator's order fails to reflect repairs made on June 9, 1991; and
that said repairs were made within (30)thirty days of the issuance date of
After careful review of the entire evidence of record, the Commissioner is
of the opinion that the owners' administrative appeal should be denied.
The District Rent Administrator properly determined the tenant's complaint
on the basis of physical inspection which revealed that the owner had
failed to provide or maintain the required service of a satisfactory
entrance door frame. The existing defective door frame constituted a
serious breach of the tenant's physical security and peace of mind.
The owners' own evidence shows they failed to replace the door frame
during the eighteen months between the tenant's complaint and the District
Rent Administrator's order.
Accordingly, the owner is not entitled to a reversal of the Rent
Administrator's order which was based upon the reduction in services
existing as of the time of the order.
The owners have submitted satisfactory evidence that post order, in June
1991, they installed a new door frame, which the tenant has acknowledged
in writing to have been satisfactory installed.
Accordingly, the rent is restored effective July 1, 1991, the first of
the month after the repairs were completed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the order of the District Rent Administrator be, and the
same hereby is, affirmed, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that the rent is restored effective July 1, 1991 due to
the owners having restored services as of that date. The tenant may pay
any arrears in rent arising as a result of this order and opinion in three
equal monthly installments.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA