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

          APPEAL OF                             DOCKET NO.: HB630150RO  
                                                RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                DOCKET NO.: GI630162OR       
                    2690 Webb Associates,

               On March 1, 1993, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on February 
          5, 1993, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodations known as 2690 Webb Avenue, Bronx, N.Y. various 
          apartments, wherein the Administrator denied the owner's 
          application for rent restoration, based upon an inspection of the 
          premises, on January 4, 1993, which disclosed that "The first floor 
          hallway ceiling is water stained near the south wall opposite 
          apartment 1-F."  The appealed order also noted that the other 
          conditions cited in the rent reduction order (April 9, 1987) were 
          found to be corrected in prior order ZGB-630045OR issued on August 
          12, 1992, which partially restored rent.

               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 issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly 
          denied the owner's application for rent restoration based upon a 
          finding that service was not fully restored.

               On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, among other things, 
          that the Rent Administrator erred by denying its application 
          because the rent reduction order of April 9, 1987 and the appealed 
          order refer to different service deficiencies; that the water 
          staining referred to below was caused by the negligence of the 
          tenant occupying apartment 2-F and that all service deficiencies 
          noted in the rent reduction order were corrected.


               The petition was served on the tenants on March 18, 1993.

               The tenants did not answer the petition.

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

               The subject (or second) application for rent restoration was 
          filed by the owner on September 29, 1992, alleging that all 
          services which were the subject of the rent reduction order issued 
          on April 9, 1987, under docket Number ZAE630037B were restored.  
          The only condition found to be not restored in the first 
          application for rent restoration was the leak damage and water 
          stains on the first floor hallway ceiling and this is the subject 
          of inquiry in the instant proceeding.

               A DHCR inspection conducted on January 4, 1993, revealed that 
          the owner had not corrected the damage and water stains on the 
          first floor hallway ceiling.

               In support of the petition, the owner submitted two repair 
          invoices dated July 28, 1992 and February 24, 1993.

               The Commissioner finds, however, that the alleged repair made 
          on February 24, 1993 is not material given the fact that the repair 
          was made after the issuance of the appealed order and the repair 
          allegedly made on July 28, 1992 was belied by the inspector's 
          findings made on January 4, 1993; nearly five months after the 
          ceiling service was allegedly restored.

               The Commissioner finds no merit to the owner's argument on 
          appeal that the ceiling deficiency referred to in the Rent 
          Administrator's reduction order and in the first restoration order 
          were different.  They were not different and the wording of the 
          reduction order of April 9, 1987 and the first restoration order of 
          August 12, 1992 were essentially the same as they pertain to the 
          water damage and staining in the public hallways.

               Additionally, the owner has failed to adduce any credible 
          evidence that the water damage and staining was caused by the 
          negligence of any tenant.


               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the results of the on-site inspection conducted on January 4, 1993, 
          and that the Rent Administrator properly denied the owner's 
          application to restore the rent upon determining that the owner had 
          failed to fully restore services.

               THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations for New York and Rent Stabilization Law and 
          Code, it is,
               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 

               Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately 
          reapply for a rent restoration.


                                                  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