STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
M. MALIK MANAGEMENT, DOCKET NO.:
134-38 Maple Ave.,
PETITIONER Various Apts., Flushing, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued 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 tenants commenced the proceeding on November 18, 1985, by
filing a building-wide complaint asserting that the owner had
failed to maintain numerous services in the subject building.
The complaint was served on the owner on January 9, 1986.
In his answer, dated February 20, 1986, the owner denied the
allegations set forth in the tenant's complaint or otherwise
asserted that all required repairs had been or will be com-
Physical inspections of the subject building were conducted by a
D.H.C.R. inspector on January 16, 1986 and February 8, 1987. The
inspector confirmed the existence of defective conditions.
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered, a rent reduction of $12.50 per month for all
rent controlled tenants in the building effective the first rent
payment following the issuance of the order and a guideline
reduction for all stabilized tenants effective February 1, 1986.
In his petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that repairs have been performed, and that the owner
was prejudiced by the delay in processing this case. The owner
contends that if the inspection took place when the application
was filed, there is no evidence that the conditions were not
corrected before the order was issued, and if the inspection took
place around the time the order was issued, the rent reduction
should be effective as of that date.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Although the owner contends that repairs were effectuated prior
to the issuance of the administrator's order, the Commissioner
notes that the owner submitted no evidence to substantiate the
contention either while the proceeding was pending before the
administrator or by attachment to his petition. Moreover, two
physical inspections more than a year apart confirmed that many
of the conditions complained of had not been repaired. Accord-
ingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the administrator's order,
and it should be affirmed.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to an application to 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, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner