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 NOS.:
CARBED ASSOCIATES AND POWERS HOLDING
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed and refiled petitions for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on September 24,
1987, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommo-
dation known as 37A Bedford Street, New York, New York, Apartment
52, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent
was warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.
The earlier petition was improperly rejected and then reopened.
The two petitions are identical and are being consolidated for
The Commissioner has reviewed all 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 May 11, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to maintain services throughout the apartment. More
specifically, the tenant alleged, in pertinent part, that the owner
was not maintaining the bathroom walls, bathroom window and tub,
the kitchen sink porcelain, the painting throughout the apartment,
and further that the apartment windows were badly deteriorated.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that the bath-
room deterioration and damage was caused by the tenant and that it
was ready, willing and able to restore all other services.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection con-
ducted on September 1, 1987, revealed that:
1. Bathroom ceiling and walls are severely
2. Floors are defective throughout the apartment.
3. Windows are defective throughout apartment.
Frames and sashes are rotted and allow air
4. Apartment front door cannot be locked because
door is warped.
5. Venetian blinds are smoke damaged.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the tenant, without its consent, created a shower in the bathroom
where none existed before and caused all of the damage in the
bathroom; that the tenant failed to notify it of other service
deficiencies; that window deficiencies were minor; that the
inspector was in error and that the Rent Administrator should have
held a hearing before rendering a determination.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 31, 1989, and on
November 15, 1989, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that the floors are defective throughout the apartment and
that most repairs made were completed in an unworkmanlike manner.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code,
A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduction of the
legal regulated rent to the level in effect prior to the
most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR shall so
reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include re-
pairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the results of an impartial inspection which bears
greater probative value than the self-serving and unsupported alle-
gations of the owner; and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the
Code, the Administrator was mandated to reduce the rent upon deter-
mining that the owner had failed to maintain services.
The Commissioner notes that the petitioner's statements at PAR con-
stitute an admission that many of the conditions that gave rise to
the rent reduction were conditions that existed prior to the DHCR
The Commissioner rejects the petitioner's assertion that some of
the conditions found were not rent reducing items and were other-
wise minor in nature. All service deficiencies found by inspector
were substantial and worthy of the owner's attention.
The Commissioner also finds that the tenant's complaint was spe-
cific and that the owner was a full participant below having filed
an answer on June 5, 1987. The record demonstrates clearly that
the owner had adequate notice and opportunity to correct all ser-
Additionally, error was not committed by the Rent Administrator, by
its failure to conduct a hearing because the scheduling of hearings
is a matter for the sole discretion of the Administrator.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator
properly determined that the owner had failed to maintain services,
and correctly reduced the rent of the subject accommodation.
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.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
right to file the appropriate application with the Division for a
restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services, if the
facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA