STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
MODRAY REALTY INC., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review (PAR) of an order issued on September 21, 1987, concerning
the housing accommodations known as 2205 Davidson Avenue, Bronx,
New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that certain
conditions found in the subject building constituted services
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 tenants commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint as-
serting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services in
the subject building.
In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the
complaint or otherwise asserted that all required repairs had been
or will be completed.
Thereafter, an inspection of the subject premises was conducted by
a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector who
confirmed the existence of defective intercoms, and rusty fire
escapes requiring painting. The inspector also reported that the
elevator was not operating at the time of inspection, and that
tenants in several apartments stated that they did not get extermi-
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services, and
further, ordered a reduction of the stabilization and control
In the petition for administrative review, the owner states that
intercom defects have been corrected, that the painting of fire
escapes was completed after an interruption of the work due to cold
weather, that extermination services have always been provided on
a regular basis, and that the inoperative elevator condition
reported by the inspector coincided with a shutdown of the elevator
on the date of inspection for the purpose of repairs.
The owner also submitted the signed statement of numerous tenants
to the effect that they took occupancy with knowledge and consent
that, for security reasons, there was no system to buzz someone
into the building from the apartments.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted in part.
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 any required
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the finding that extermina-
tion services were not provided, based on the statements of several
tenants to the DHCR inspector to that effect, is not a proper pre-
dicate for rent reductions in the absence of any finding of roach
and rodent infestation, and should be revoked.
The Administrator also granted rent reductions pursuant to Section
2202.16 of the City Rent and Eviction Regulations, notwithstanding
that no rent controlled tenant signed the complaint. In fact all
the regulated apartments in the subject building are registered as
rent stabilized units. The list of rent controlled tenants appears
to have been derived from a 1972 order of maximum base rents for
the subject building. The Administrator's order should be amended
to revoke these rent reductions.
The owner's petition does not establish any other basis for further
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 condi-
tions in the subject premises for which a rent reduction is
The owner's allegations of forgery and misrepresentation notwith-
standing, the record reveals that some tenants have not retracted
their signatures from the complaint. The tenants who assert that
they did not knowingly sign the complaint do so for the first time
on appeal at the owner's request. These tenants' request to with-
draw from the complaint cannot be considered in this proceeding
since the orders when issued were proper based on the record pre-
sented, and must therefore be followed. Although some tenants may
voluntarily choose to pay more than the legal rent, this does not
affect their right to a rent decrease based on reduced services.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatements that resulted
by the filing of the petition is vacated upon issuance of this
order and opinion.
The owner may file a rent restoration application if the facts so
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law and Code, and the Rent and Evictions Regulations for New
York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, amended to revoke the finding of a lack of extermina-
tion services as a predicate for rent reductions, and to revoke
rent control rent reductions. In all other respects, the Adminis-
trator's order is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA