FL610054RO
                                  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.: FL610054RO 
                                                  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: FD610282S       
               RICH REALTY CO.,                                      
                                                PREMISES: 1718 Grand Ave.,
                                                          Apt. #6H
                                                          Bronx, NY
                                 PETITIONER  
          ----------------------------------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 26, 1991 
          concerning the housing accommodations relating to the above- 
          described docket number.

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

               This proceeding was commenced on April 5, 1991 by the tenant 
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner failed to maintain 
          numerous services in the subject apartment.

               On April 18, 1991, the Division transmitted a copy of the 
          tenant's complaint to the owner.

               The owner filed an answer, stating that the access date for 
          the work to begin would be in the third week of May 1991 and that 
          a tenant's acknowledgment would be sent when work is completed.

               On July 9, 1991, an on-site inspection of the subject 
          apartment was conducted by a Division staff member who found that 
          only two out of ten complained of conditions were not repaired by 
          the owner, namely the defective alignment of the bathroom door 
          frame and the defective caulking of the living room window.

               On August 23, 1991, the Division mailed to the owner a 
          "Request for Additional Information/Evidence", stating that because 
          the two remaining defects are minor, the complaint will be 













          FL610054RO



          dismissed if the owner will repair these items within 21 days.

               On September 26, 1991, the Administrator directed the 
          restoration of services and ordered a reduction for the stabilized 
          rent.

               In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends 
          that repairs were performed prior to the issuance of the 
          Administrator's order.  The owner submitted a copy of a work order  
          dated September 13, 1991 relating to repair of the glass frame, 
          which was allegedly sent by certified mail to the Administrator.

               On April 26, 1993, the Division mailed a copy of the owner's 
          petition to the tenant.

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

               The owner does not dispute the Administrator's determination 
          which was based upon a staff inspector's report which found 
          defective conditions within the apartment.,  Accordingly, the 
          determination was in all respects proper and is hereby sustained.

               The Commissioner finds that the owner's evidence (a September 
          13, 1991 copy of a work order and attachments) is insufficient to 
          show that this evidence was before the Administrator in the 
          proceeding below.  Although the owner alleged certified mailing, 
          the owner produced no evidence of a return receipt.  The alleged 
          evidence itself indicated only "glass frame" repairs, but there is 
          no indication whether the bathroom door is now properly aligned 
          with the frame and whether there is no more moisture between the 
          glass panes of the living room window.

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

               ORDERED, that this petition for administrative review 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