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.:FA110008RO     
                                                        
          Petrex Realty/Aldo Realty,               RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:EH110794S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      34-06 82nd St.
                                                      Apt. 3
                                                      New York, NY    
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
            ...ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN 
                           PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER

            The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
            review of an order issued on November 30, 1990 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 August 29, 1990 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            In an answer dated November 14, 1990, the owner denied the 
            allegations and otherwise asserted that upon the owner's 
            investigation of the complaint, the tenant agreed that the following 
            needed to be done:

                 - new kitchen sink to be installed;
                 - extermination;
                 - hole in bedroom floor to be repaired in a workmanlike        
                     manner;
                 - brackets to be installed on bathroom pipes near the          
                   bathtub.

            The owner submitted copies allegedly signed by the tenant concerning 
            modifications to the complaint. One copy dated October 25, 1990 
            states that "the windows are all OK". Another copy dated October 29, 
            1990 states that "the floor was done perfectly." The owner also 
            submitted copies of letters from the exterminating company 
            indicating regular extermination of the subject apartment.

            On November 14, 1990, an inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted by a DHCR staff member who reported the following:


            FA110008RO








                 (1) The two (2) living room windows have top sashes painted    
                     shut and missing locks.


                 (2) The left side window of the 2nd bedroom have top and bottom  
                     sashes difficult to open and close; the top sash does not  
                     fully close and there is a missing lock.

                 (3) The right side window of the 2nd bedroom has the top sash  
                     painted shut.

                 (4) There is roach infestation throughout the apartment.

                 (5) The kitchen ceiling is repaired in an unworkmanlike manner. 

                 (6) The ceiling of the master bedroom was repaired in an       
                     unworkmanlike manner; the repaired areas are sunken and    
                    not sanded.

                 (7) The floor of the master bedroom floor was repaired in an   
                     unworkmanlike manner; there are gaps between floor boards  
                     in various areas. 
            .
            By an order dated November 30, 1990, the Administrator directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was 
            done, and that findings outside the ambit of the complaint are 
            violative of the owner's due process.

            DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.

            After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
            the petition should be granted in part and that the Administrator's 
            order should be modified accordingly.

            Based on the tenant's alleged modification of the complaint that 
            only certain items need be repaired, the owner could reasonably 
            assume that those items alone need be done; that after repairing 
            those items, no further action is required; and that the proceeding 
            before DHCR would be terminated without a rent reduction. Due 
            process requires that the tenant's signed statements, if submitted 
            by the owner, be served on the tenant and, if challenged, that the 
            owner be advised that the original complaint was not being 
            withdrawn.

            In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that contrary 
            to the owner's allegations and statements allegedly signed by the 
            tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not possibly 
            have not been done properly before the November 14, 1990 inspection. 
            A rent reduction for these conditions is required pursuant to 
            Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, but because of the 
            failure to verify the tenant's signature on alleged statements 
            concerning these conditions or to advise the owner that the original 
            complaint was not being terminated, the effective date of the rent 
            FA110008RO


            reduction is hereby modified to December 1, 1990, the first of the 



            month following issuance of the Administrator's order, when the 
            owner had actual knowledge that the original complaint was not being 
            withdrawn.

            Rent arrears may be due the owner from the tenant as a result of 
            this Order and Opinion. Any arrears shall be paid in monthly 
            installments which shall not exceed the amount of the monthly rent 
            reductions revoked herein.

            The status of the owner's rent restoration applications is as 
            follows: EL110217OR denied on May 29, 1991 and FF110183OR denied on 
            February 20, 1992.

            THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code 
            and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is

            ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
            part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
            modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.



            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