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.: FF 110290-RO
                                         :  
                                            DRO DOCKET NO.: DK 110014-S
       ANGELO & LILIANA BANCIC,

                           PETITIONERS    : 
     ------------------------------------X                             

           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
     Apartment D-5.

     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
     loose.









          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 
     the order.

     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.

     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