DHCR Decisions          DC410119RO                                  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.: DC410119RO                                                                                                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S              CHARLES H. GREENTHAL CORP.,         DOCKET NO.: CB410755S                                                  PREMISES: Apt.12-C                                                  412 East 55th St.                                  PETITIONER      New York, NY              ----------------------------------x            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW          The above-named petitioner filed a timely Petition for Adminis-          trative Review (PAR) against an order issued on February 24, 1989,          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 February 12, 1988 by filing          a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain          services in the subject apartment.          On June 3, 1988, the Division of Housing and Community Renewal          (DHCR) mailed a copy of the complaint to the owner.          Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was          conducted on January 25, 1989, by a DHCR staff member who confirmed          that there were no numerical identifiers on the apartment front          door; the apartment had peeling paint and plaster throughout; the          bathroom sink stopper was defective; there was crumbling plaster on          walls located behind the radiators throughout; the kitchen cabinet          doors failed to close properly; the kitchen fluorescent light bulb          required replacement; and there was inadequate shower water          pressure.          By an order dated February 24, 1989, the Administrator directed the          restoration of services and ordered a reduction of the stabilized          rent.          DC410119RO          In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in          substance that it never received the tenant's complaint; that the          lack of numerical identifiers on the apartment door, the defective          kitchen cabinet doors and the defective kitchen fluorescent light          bulb are not "required services"; that the tenant refused access in          the proceeding below; and that repairs were undertaken once the          tenant permitted access.          In answer, the tenant denied the allegations in the petition and          otherwise asserted that the owner was aware of these conditions            even prior to the DHCR complaint due to litigation in landlord/-          tenant court; that he never refused access but that the owner does          not return his calls to schedule the commencement and completion of          repairs; that on the eve of their trial in landlord/tenant court,          the repairmen knocked down the plaster on the walls and aggravated          the leak; that the owner failed to complete the repairs which were          abandoned in an unworkmanlike manner; and that the results of the          January 25, 1989 inspection should be upheld.          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 petition does not establish any basis to modify or          revoke the Administrator's determination based on the January 25,          1989, physical inspection which confirmed the existence of          defective conditions.  Accordingly, the order appealed from was in          all respects proper and is hereby sustained.          Despite the owner's contentions, the Commissioner finds that the          lack of numerical identifiers on the apartment door, the defective          kitchen cabinet doors and the defective kitchen fluorescent light          bulb, including many other defective conditions confirmed by          inspection are decreases in services, warranting a rent reduction.          The allegation that the owner did not receive the complaint is          unsubstantiated and without merit.  The record establishes that on          June 3, 1988, DHCR mailed a copy of the complaint to the owner.            There is nothing in the Administrator's file indicating that the          owner filed an answer.          The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration          application (FE410039OR) was denied on November 25, 1991.          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent reduction that resulted          DC410119RO          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this          Order and Opinion.          THEREFORE, pursuant to 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