GD 120006-RT;  CE 120309-RO
                                    STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEALS OF                              DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  GD 120006-RT
          ELIZABETH BLANDA, Petitioner Tenant     CE 120309-RO 
          RICHARD ALBERT,   Petitioner Owner
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NOS.:   
                                                  EK 120020-RP
                                                  BI 120089-OR 


          On April 7, 1992, the above-named petitioner tenant filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review (PAR) against an order issued on 
          March 12, 1992, by the Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica, 
          New York, concerning the subject housing accommodations known as  
          93-41 222nd Street, Apartment 1-D, Queens, New York, wherein under 
          an order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner (BH 120247-RO) dated 
          October 31, 1990, the Administrator determined that a rent reduc- 
          tion previously granted the tenant (AH 120584-S), but subsequently 
          revoked by the Commissioner, should not be reinstated on reconsid- 
          eration, for reasons more fully set forth below.

          The underlying Administrator's determination (Order No. AH 120584- 
          S, dated July 31, 1987) that gave rise to the instant proceedings 
          granted the tenant a $9.00 per month rent reduction based on 
          findings that inspections conducted on November 9, 1986 and January 
          16, 1987 confirmed that the exterior window frames and sashes 
          required repairs.

          The owner challenged that determination asserting that he had been 
          denied due process, asserting that he had never been served with a 
          copy of the complaint.  The Deputy Commissioner granted the owner's 
          administrative appeal.  The Deputy Commissioner noted that the 
          tenant had filed two separate complaints; one alleged that the 
          apartment was roach infested; the other, that the exterior window 
          frames and sashes required repairs and painting.  The Deputy 
          Commissioner, after a thorough review, determined that the case 
          docket failed to establish that both complaints were served upon 
          the owner.

          GD 120006-RT;  CE 120309-RO

          Based on these findings, the Deputy Commissioner revoked the rent 
          reduction order, and remanded the proceedings to the Administrator 
          to afford the owner his due process rights as to both complaints.  
          It was also pointed out that the Administrator had not determined 
          the tenant's roach infestation complaint.

          On remand, the Administrator served the owner with both complaints 
          in accordance with the Deputy Commissioner's directives.  There is 
          no record that the owner responded.  Nevertheless, inspections were 
          held on January 8 and February 21, 1992, that confirmed that the 
          exterior window sashes and frames required repairs and painting and 
          that here was evidence of roach infestation.

          Notwithstanding the conditions revealed on inspection, the 
          Administrator concurred that the Deputy Commissioner's order  
          revoking the rent reduction was appropriate.  The Administrator's 
          order also stated that the issue of exterior window sashes and 
          frames was not properly raised, and advised the tenant of her right 
          to refile a building-wide complaint raising the issue.  The 
          Administrator did not grant a rent reduction for roach infestation 
          on the grounds that exterminating services were already provided.  
          The owner was directed to provide more frequent attention and 
          treatment to the apartment in light of the fact that the source of 
          the problem was the apartment's proximity to the incinerator room.  
          The Administrator also noted that a rent reduction of $6.00 per 
          month for roach infestation had been issued on March 26, 1991 (DE 
          120938-S), and duplicated in an order issued on March 27, 1991 (EE 

          In her appeal, the tenant contends that the March 12, 1992 order 
          (EK 120020-RO) was deficient on its face, arguing, in essence, that 
          the June 14, 1991 notice of proceeding to reconsider the tenant's 
          complaint (under AH 120584-S) limited the Administrator to affirm 
          or modify the rent reduction order previously entered, but 
          precluded the Administrator from revoking the rent reduction.  The 
          tenant also disputes the Administrator's finding that defective 
          window issues could only be raised only in a building-wide 
          complaint.  The tenant's appeal does not allege any errors with 
          regard to findings of roach infestation.

          Division records also reveal an administrative appeal filed by the 
          owner (CE 120309-RO) challenging an order (BI 120089-OR) issued on 
          May 5, 1988 that restored the rent previously reduced by the July 
          31, 1987 order (AH 120584-S).  The Administrator restored the rent 
          based on a "no-access" inspection conducted on February 25, 1988.  
          Present at the inspection were the inspector, the tenant, and the 
          superintendent.  The inspector reported, among other things, that 
          the tenant did not want the work done on windows at that time 

          GD 120006-RT;  CE 120309-RO

          notwithstanding the fact that the owner's staff was prepared and 
          available.  The order provided that the owner remain obligated to 
          make repairs as soon as he was given access.  In fact, the tenant 
          concedes that repairs were done on March 24 and 25, 1988.  The 
          owner requests that the rent restoration order be made effective 
          back to the date of the original order reducing the rent, August 1, 
          1987, rather than prospectively.

          The applicable law is Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction 

          For purposes of clarification, the Commissioner notes the notice to 
          "affirm or modify" also contemplates revocation of an order, if the 
          facts so warrant.  Herein, the notice of the proceedings on remand, 
          to affirm or modify, merely carried out the Commissioner's direc- 
          tives to reconsider the tenant's complaints, and to afford the 
          owner his due process rights.

          The Commissioner finds, however, that the Administrator erred in 
          holding that the issue of exterior window frames and sashes could 
          be raised only by filing a building-wide complaint form.  The 
          complaint of a decrease in individual apartment services was appro- 
          priate to raise the issue of defective windows in the apartment.

          Based on the record, the initial rent reduction is reinstated 
          effective as of the August 1987 rent payment date after the 
          Administrator's order issued (July 31, 1987) giving the owner 
          notice of the conditions, and is terminated after the February 1988 
          rent payment date as the tenant refused the owner's staff permis- 
          sion to effect repairs in the presence of the Division's inspector.
          The tenant has conceded that repairs to the windows were completed 
          on March 24, and 25, 1988.

          The inspection conducted on January 8, 1992 confirmed that window 
          sashes and frames required scraping, painting and caulking once 
          again.  The owner is directed to correct these current conditions 
          within 30 days if not done so already.  

          The owner's administrative appeal (CE 120309-RO) to have the rent 
          restored to the date of the original rent reduction is denied.  The 
          findings herein address the reasons why a rent reduction was 
          warranted, albeit for a limited period.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for 
          New York City, it is,


          ORDERED, that the tenant's petition be, and the same hereby is, 

          GD 120006-RT;  CE 120309-RO

          granted in part, and that the owner's petition be, and the same 
          hereby is denied.


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                Acting 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