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.:FC610059RO     
                                                        
          Hill Top House, Inc.,                    RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:ED610905S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      500 Kappock Street
                                                      Apt. 7G
                                                      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 February 20, 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 April 19, 1990 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            In an answer filed on July 2, 1990, the owner denied some of he 
            allegations and otherwise asserted that services were being provided 
            and maintained.

            On August 28, 1990, an inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of 
            defective conditions.

            The owner was informed of these defective conditions.

            In an answer filed on October 10, 1990, the owner stated that the 
            entire terrace is being repaired; that all windows are being 
            replaced with new windows; and that the awning belongs to the tenant 
            and should be repaired by the tenant.

            Another physical inspection of the subject apartment was conducted 
            on January 3, 1991 by a DHCR staff member who reported that the 
            terrace door is cracked and its panel replaced with plywood; and 
            that the terrace awning is torn in various places.

            By an order dated February 20, 1991, the Administrator directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            FC610059RO







            In this petition, the owner contends that it has not received the 
            tenant's complaint; that all conditions were corrected except for 
            the awning installed by the tenant; and that the tenant refuses 
            repair of the door and insists on replacement with a new door.

            In answer, the tenant denied in substance the allegations in the 
            petition. As to the awning, she asserted that there are nine (9) 
            terrace awnings in the building, all of the same type and installed 
            in the same way. The "hardware" of these awnings is made of steel 
            and its "armature" is permanently attached to the building infra- 
            structure. The awnings were installed in the 1950's with bricks 
            being laid around the awning hardware during the final construction 
            of the building. Thus, it is unlikely that all these terrace awnings 
            of the same color, size, pattern, material and installation were 
            supplied by individual tenants.

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

            Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
            authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant, 
            where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required 
            services.

            The owner's petition does not establish any basis to modify or 
            revoke the Administrator's determination based on the August 28, 
            1990 and January 3, 1991 inspection which confirmed the existence of 
            defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction. 

            In addition, the petition fails to establish that the awning was 
            installed by the tenant.

            Moreover, the bare allegation that the tenant refused repair of the 
            terrace door and insisted on replacement with a new door was not 
            raised before the Administrator.

            Finally, the owner's contention that it has not received the 
            tenant's complaint is belied by the owner's various answers in the 
            proceeding below.

            The owner's rent restoration application (FC610056OR) was denied on 
            September 10, 1991.

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

            ISSUED:



                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner