ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ARL - 08745 - Q

                                  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.:              
                                                 ARL - 08745 - Q             
                                    
                                              :  
                                                
                                                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S    
                                                 DOCKET NO.:                 
                                                 QC - 002678 - S 
                                             
                RICHARD ALBERT                                  

                              PETITIONER      : 
          ------------------------------------X                             

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW


               On March 11, 1986, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review of an order issued on February 
          11, 1986, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 93-49 222nd Street, Queens Village, N. Y., 
          Apartment 1 - Y, wherein the Administrator determined that the 
          maximum legal rent for the subject rent-controlled apartment should 
          be reduced by $4.00 per month based upon the owner's failure to 
          make repairs to the kitchen and bathroom faucets.  The owner also 
          filed a supplementary petition for administrative review on 
          November 4, 1988.

               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 
          reduced the rent of the subject apartment.

               On appeal, the petitioner-owner alleged, inter alia, that the 
          deficient services which were the basis for the Rent 
          Administrator's reduction order were of a de minimis nature not 
          requiring a reduction in rent; that the owner made numerous repairs 
          to the apartment plumbing before the issuance of the reduction 
          order; that the owner is entitled to collect an MBR increase 
          granted after the issuance of the subject rent reduction order 














          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ARL - 08745 - Q

          where the effective date of the MBR increase antedates the 
          effective date of the reduction order; that a hearing should be 
          held to determine the issues herein and that he is entitled to both
          notice of and the results of inspections held. 

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

               Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides 
          that a finding that an owner has failed to maintain services may 
          result in an order of decrease in maximum rent, in an amount 
          determined by the discretion of the Rent Administrator.

               The Commissioner has considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim on appeal that the conditions found below are minor in nature 
          and not rent-reducing items.  Defective kitchen and bathroom 
          faucets are serious service deficiencies worthy of the owner's 
          attention and are not minor items. 

               The Commissioner also finds that the owner's claim that the 
          repairs were made prior to the issuance of the reduction order is 
          without substance.  An inspection conducted on August 31, 1988, in 
          file number CD - 110006 - OR, showed that even after the issuance 
          of the reduction order, conditions were not fully restored; thus 
          warranting the Rent Administrator's issuance of an order of partial 
          restoration on October 4, 1988, in the amount of $3.00 per month. 

               In the case at hand, the effective date of the MBR increase 
          granted to the owner is January 1, 1986 and the effective date of 
          the reduction order is March 1, 1986.  The MBR increase, therefore, 
          antedated the reduction order. 

               In accordance with Policy Statement 90-1, dated February 8, 
          1990, the owner is not entitled to collect an MBR increase after 
          the effective date of a rent reduction order for failure to 
          maintain an essential service until the Rent Administrator issues 
          a full rent restoration order.  It further states that rent 
          decrease orders which do not distinguish between a failure to 
          provide an essential or non-essential service bar the 
          collectibility of an subsequent MCR increase until an order has 
          been issued restoring the rent.








               Upon the facts found herein, the Commissioner finds that the 
          owner is entitled to collect the 7 1/2% MBR increase for the period 






          ADM. REVIEW DOCKET NO.: ARL - 08745 - Q

          January 1, 1986 until the rent reduction went into effect on March 
          1, 1986.  Thereafter, the rent is reduced by $4.00 per month as 
          mandated by the reduction order, and no further increase may be 
          collected until the effective date of the restoration.

               As to the owner's claim that the Rent Administrator should 
          have conducted a hearing and should have furnished him with notice 
          and the results of inspections held, the Commissioner finds that 
          the scheduling of hearings is a matter for the sole discretion of 
          the administrator and that due process does not require that the 
          owner be informed that inspections are to take place or that it be 
          sent copies of the reports, with an opportunity to rectify the 
          conditions or to respond.  The owner had adequate notice from the 
          tenant's complaints of conditions requiring its attention. 

               Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent 
          Administrator properly reduced the rent of the subject apartment. 

               The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration 
          application was granted on November 20, 1989 under Docket No. DF - 
          110126 - OR.

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

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

          ISSUED:


                                                                        
                                          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