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.: BC130044RO
: RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Queens Park Realty Corp. DOCKET NO.: AK130038RP
c/o Provident Operating Corp.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 3, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on February 2, 1987, by
the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation known as
65-10 99th Street, Rego Park, N.Y., various tenants, wherein the
Administrator determined that the maximum legal rent for rent
controlled apartments should be reduced by $19.00 per month, based upon
a diminution of services. The Rent Administrator's order was based
upon an inspection held on October 7, 1985.
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
maximum legal rent of the rent controlled apartments in the subject
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted that the Rent Administrator
erred by issuing the order reducing the rents of rent controlled
apartments because the inspection which found a diminution of services
was held many months before the issuance of the appealed order and
that, in fact, the conditions were corrected between the date of the
last inspection and the issuance date of the Rent Administrator's
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal should
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed a PAR of the Rent
Administrator's order based on the same complaint which reduced the
rents of Rent Stabilized apartments in the subject building, under
docket number ARL09435Q, and that on November 13, 1989, an order was
issued denying the owner's petition. The Rent Administrator's order
(QCS000589B) issued on March 13,1986 was based on two inspections held
on October 7, 1985 and February 14, 1986, which substantiated the
tenants' allegations that the owner was not maintaining services in the
An amended order was issued on February 2, 1987 which ordered a $19.00
per month rent reduction for all rent controlled tenants in the
building effective the first rent payment day following the date of
issuance of the order.
Notwithstanding the owner's allegations of repair, the tenants of the
subject building have consistently informed the Division that the
complained-of conditions have not been corrected. A review of the file
on appeal (BC130044RO) reveals that a number of these statements were
filed after February 2, 1987; the date of issuance of the Rent
Administrator's order. Moreover in subsequent rent restoration
proceedings, inspections revealed that services had still not been
restored (AJ130060OR, BK130054OR, CE130068OR).
The Commissioner has considered the owner's contention that the
appealed order was issued in error and rejects this argument.
A review of the file reveals that at least one Rent Controlled tenant
signed the complaint form (September 10, 1985) and that as a
consequence thereof all rent controlled tenants would be entitled to
a reduction in the maximum legal rent; whether or not, they signed the
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides in
pertinent part, that the Administrator may order a decrease in rent
based on a finding that there has been a decrease in the dwelling
space, essential services, furniture, furnishings or equipment.
The owner had seventeen months from the date of service of the tenants'
complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order to
investigate the tenants' complaint and to make the necessary repairs,
but failed to do so.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record including the results of the on-site
physical inspections conducted on October 7, 1985 and February 14,
1986; and that pursuant to Section 2202.16 (a) of the Rent and Eviction
Regulations the Administrator acted properly in reducing the rent upon
determining that the owner had failed to maintain services.
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 a restoration of services, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations, 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.
Joseph A. D'Agosta