OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          APPEAL OF                              DOCKET NO.: GH110128RO      
                                                 DOCKET NO.: EG110633S       
                                                 SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                       64-34 102nd St.
                                PETITIONER             Rego Park, NY   


            The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
            review of an order issued on July 27, 1992 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 July 24, 1990 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            In its answer, the owner asserted in substance that "all the needed 
            work was completed but the tenant refused to sign for the work."
            Attached to the answer in relevant part was a copy of a painter's 
            affidavit, which stated that on June 12 and June 27, 1990 he 
            attempted access to do repairs but was refused by the tenant; and 
            that on August 16 and 17, 1990 he "did all the scraping, plastering 
            and painting of the full apartment". There was also a copy of an 
            affidavit from the building superintendent who alleged that he never 
            received any complaint from the tenant.

            In reply, the tenant alleged that "the apartment had leaks and paint 
            coming out of the walls and ceilings"; that the refrigerator is 
            broken; and that defective conditions still exist. 

            A Notice of Inspection (For Access) was mailed to the parties 
            concerned, instructing both the owner and/or his repair person(s) to 
            be present at the apartment "on July 16, 1992 at 11:00 AM so as to 
            provide access to the owner for the purposes of attending to repairs 
            and/or restoration of services at this time." The notice further 
            states in relevant part:


                 Failure of the owner and/or his repair person(s)
                 to be present and ready to attend to repairs and/
                 or restore services, or failure of the tenant to
                 keep this appointment will result in a determination
                 based solely on the evidence presently in the record.
            Thereafter, an inspection (for access) was conducted on July 16, 
            1992 by a DHCR inspector who reported that the owner/management 
            failed to keep the appointment; the walls and ceilings of the 
            kitchen, hallway and bedroom closets were not painted; the hallway 
            wall above the bathroom door is bulged; the refigerator kick plate 
            is loose; the panel inside the refrigerator on the right is cracked; 
            the refrigerator's exterior body on the right side is rusty; the 
            freezer's temperature is 6 F; the temperature in the food 
            compartment is 38 F; the walls and ceiling in the bathroom are 
            bulged, stained and peeling paint in various areas; and that the 
            entrance steps to the living room are loose and shaking when stepped 

            In the record is the inspector's signed statement: "Attached find a 
            copy of the daily work schedule which establishes I was at the Apt. 
            7B, 64-34 102nd. St., Queens, from 11:00AM to 11:30AM doing 
            inspection on July 16, 1992" with the subject tenant.

            On July 27, 1992, the Administrator directed the restoration of 
            services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized rent based on 
            these services not maintained:

                 paint/plaster apartment-wide;
                 entrance steps to the living room;
                 body of the refrigerator;
                 refrigerator and freezer temperature;
                 bathroom ceiling; and 
                 bathroom walls.

            In its petition for administrative review, the owner repeats the 
            allegations in the proceeding below that the tenant refused access 
            and that repairs were completed. The owner also contends for the 
            first time on appeal that on the scheduled inspection for access on 
            July 16, 1992  the building manager and the building superintendent 
            waited for the inspector between the hours of 10:45 AM and 12:00 
            noon; that "nobody showed up"; and that DHCR was informed about this 

            On September 1, 1992, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the 
            tenant who filed an answer stating that the inspector was present at  
            the scheduled inspection for access; and that the owner or its 
            representative was not there.

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

            The Administrator properly relied on the inspector's report that on 
            the scheduled inspection for access, the owner/management failed to 
            keep the appointment. The Administrator was correct in relying on 

            the findings of a DHCR staff member who has no interest in the 

            outcome of this proceeding, and not on the self-serving, 
            unsubstantiated assertions of an interested party to this 

            Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is 
            required 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 for 
            modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which determined 
            that the owner was not maintaining required services based on a 
            physical inspection confirming the existence of defective conditions 
            in the subject apartment for which a a rent reduction is warranted.

            The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
            by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
            Order and Opinion.

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


                                                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