FJ 110155 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.: FJ 110155-RO 
                                             :  
                                             :   DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
            VAN KLEECK ASSOCIATES,           :   DOCKET NO.: FC 110414-S
                                             :
                                             :   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                             :   52-25 Van Kleeck Street
                                             :   Apt. No. L2
                                PETITIONER   :   Elmhurst, New York 11373
          -----------------------------------X                           

            
            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          The above-named owner filed a timely Petition  for  Administrative
          Review of an order issued on September 11,  1991,  concerning  the
          housing accommodations  relating  to  the  above-described  docket
          number.  

          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 petition.

          The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 19, 1991 by filing a 
          complaint asserting numerous defective conditions in  the  subject
          apartment.

          In its answer filed on June 12, 1991 and July 3, 1991,  the  owner
          asserts in substance that all repairs were completed  and  submits
          copies of paid bills and checks  concerning  an  October  2,  1990
          painting.  An April 1, 1991 repair request also submitted  by  the
          owner shows that the tenant allegedly  signed  on  April  8,  1991
          complete work on the faucet, the tiles in  the  bathroom  and  the
          pipes in the bathroom.

          Thereafter on August 6, 1991, a physical inspection was  conducted
          by  a  DHCR  inspector  who  confirmed  the  existence  of   roach
          infestation, a defective kitchen faucet leaking  cold  water,  two
          areas of missing tiles in the bathroom and the  apartment  needing
          painting.

          On August 27, 1991, the tenant filed with DHCR  a  statement  that
          "as a result of a massive leak from a  water  pipe  on  the  sixth
          floor," the entire apartment was flooded  and  required  painting;
          and that the defective conditions still exist.






          FJ 110155 RO


          On September 11, 1991, the Administrator directed  restoration  of
          these services and reduction of the stabilized rent.

          In this  petition,  the  owner  contends  in  substance  that  the
          apartment was painted in October 1990 and due for next painting in 
          1993  and  that  the  tenant  never  requested  repairs   of   the
          complained-of conditions after April 8, 1991 repairs.   The  owner
          re-submits the same supporting papers below  and  statements  from
          the exterminator who  alleged  that  the  tenant  of  the  subject
          apartment "did not sign up" in the program to exterminate rodents.

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

          The owner submitted a copy of a  repair  request  dated  April  1,
          1991, wherein  the  tenant  allegedly  signed  an  April  8,  1991
          acknowledgment that the faucet, the tiles in the bathroom and  the
          pipes in the bathroom were repaired.  Although the tenant does not 
          deny this acknowledgment, a physical inspection on August 6,  1991
          showed  these  items  not  repaired  and  the  apartment   needing
          painting.  In a statement filed with DHCR on August 27, 1991,  the
          tenant explains that "as a result of a massive leak from  a  water
          pipe on the sixth floor," the entire  apartment  was  flooded  and
          required painting; and that the defective conditions  continue  to
          exist.

          Although the owner appears  not  to  have  been  informed  of  the
          continued existence of the complained-of conditions, the owner has 
          an independent duty to complete and  finalize  repairs.   In  this
          case, the tenant  never  withdrew  her  complaint.   The  physical
          inspection found that the faucet,  the  tiles  and  pipes  in  the
          bathroom were not actually repaired regardless whether  the  cause
          is from a water pipe leak or improper repairs.

          Thus, the owner has offered insufficient  reason  to  disturb  the
          Administrator's order based on the physical inspection which found 
          decreased services, warranting rent reduction.

          Respecting  the  existence  of  roach  infestation,  the   owner's
          allegation that the tenant "did not sign up" in the  extermination
          program was not raised  in  the  proceeding  below  and  prior  to
          issuance of the Administrator's order and is now  raised  for  the
          first time on appeal.  Accordingly, this allegation is beyond  the
          scope of review which is limited to the issues and evidence before 
          the Administrator.

          This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the  owner's
          filing an  application  for  restoration  of  rent  based  on  the
          restoration of services, if the facts so warrant.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, 
          it is







          FJ 110155 RO



          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same  hereby  is,  denied,
          and that the Administrator's order be, and  the  same  hereby  is,
          affirmed.


          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