ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GJ410114RT

                                  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.:              
                                                 GJ410114RT
                                              :  
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                 DOCKET NO.:
                                                 GA410521S
                                                 
                                                 

            72-82 TERRACE REALTY, INC.
                                                    
                                                                             
                                      
                                             
                                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
                                          
                                          
               On October 7, 1992, the above-named petitioner-tenant timely 
          refiled a petition for administrative review of an order issued on 
          July 17, 1992, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 82 Wadsworth Terrace, New York, N.Y., 
          Apartment 6-G, wherein the Administrator determined that the 
          tenant's application for a decrease in rent should be denied based 
          upon a second inspection held on June 4, 1992, which showed that 
          the owner was maintaining all services specified in the tenant's 
          application.

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

               The tenant filed a complaint on January 12, 1992 in which she 
          alleged that there was mice and roach infestation, the stove is 
          defective, plastering is needed in the kitchen, the bathroom faucet 
          is defective, the bathtub is damaged, the shower mixer is defective 
          and the living room has peeling paint.  















          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GJ410114RT

               On February 25, 1992, the owner filed an answer to the 
          tenant's complaint alleging that several unsuccessful attempts were 
          made by management to gain access to the subject apartment.

               A physical inspection of the subject apartment on April 22, 
          1992 revealed vermin infestation, defective stove, no evidence of 
          peeling paint and plaster, no evidence of defective faucet, chipped 
          and worn enamel on the bathtub, the shower mixer is defective, and 
          no evidence of peeling paint and plaster in the living room.

               Based on the owner's claim of failure to obtain access which 
          was substantiated with copies of letters sent to the tenant by 
          certified mail requesting access, a "No Access" inspection was 
          scheduled for June 4, 1992.  The owner, the tenant, the 
          exterminating company, and the stove repairperson were present.  
          The inspector reported that exterminator service is provided 
          monthly, that the stove has been repaired and was working properly, 
          and that the bathtub and shower mixer were not defective.   

               The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          denied the tenant's application for a decrease in rent based upon 
          a decrease in services.

               On appeal, the petitioner-tenant contended that the owner's 
          replacement stove did not work well and that even though the 
          exterminator came to her apartment, vermin are still evident.

               The petition was served on the owner on October 26, 1992.

               On November 22, 1992, the owner answered the tenant's petition 
          alleging that the stove was repaired in a workmanlike manner, as 
          soon as it received the tenant's complaint.

               The tenant replied and alleged that the stove was still 
          defective and that Con Edison had placed a red tag on it in 
          November 1992. 

               After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record 
          the Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal 
          should be denied.

               The record demonstrates that the owner had corrected all 
          service deficiencies at the time of the second (follow-up) 
          inspection, which was held on June 4, 1992.  At that time, the 
          owner provided exterminator service and had a repairperson 
          available to repair the stove which was found to not be necessary.  
          If a new defect in the stove has developed, the tenant is advised 
          to file a new complaint.


               The Commissioner notes that the tenant's allegations on appeal 
          are unsupported by any substantiating evidence and that there is no 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: GJ410114RT

          evidence contained in the record which was before the Administrator 
          to indicate that conditions in the subject apartment were other 
          than as found by the inspector during his June 4, 1992 visit.  
          Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the 
          Commissioner finds that the tenant has offered insufficient reason 
          to disturb the Administrator's determination.  

               The Commissioner notes that while the tenant questions the 
          findings of fact, the record clearly reflects those findings by 
          virtue of the DHCR inspection which occurred on June 4, 1992.  
          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator 
          properly determined that the owner had been maintaining services 
          based on the evidence of record, including the results of a 
          physical inspection of the subject building, and correctly denied 
          the tenant's rent reduction application.

               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 Rent 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