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.:
D.R.O. DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER AJ 210441-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 5, 1987, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an
Administrative Appeal against an order issued on June 30, 1987, by
the District Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall Street, Jamaica,
New York, concerning the housing accommodations known as 130 Bay
Ridge Parkway, Apartment 2-D, Brooklyn, New York.
The issue herein is whether the District Rent Administrator
properly reduced the rent of the subject apartment.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on October 22, 1986 by filing
a complaint in which he alleged that the owner had refused to
repair three badly water damaged rooms in the apartment or the
cause of leaks still occurring in the kitchen. The tenant included
with the complaint copies of letters sent to the owner by certified
mail, signed for by the owner, notifying him of the need for
repairs but which the owner has denied receiving. The record does
not contain an answer to the complaint.
The District Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, reduced
the rent of the tenant's apartment to the level in effect prior to
the last guideline increase effective January 1, 1987. This order
was based upon an inspection which revealed:
1. The bathroom ceiling - further repairs needed -
missing ceiling plaster.
2. Bedroom - the wall - small area of chipped paint.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asseverated that he never received
a copy of the tenant's complaint; that he painted the bathroom, the
bedroom and living room ceiling and that the conditions found by
the inspector are too minor to warrant a rent reduction. He
encloses with the petition a copy of a letter dated December 8,
1986, addressed to the Division requesting a copy of the complaint
and a copy of a paid bill for painting and plastering of the
apartment on February 25, 1987.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
With respect to the owner's claim, on appeal, that he never
received a copy of the tenant's complaint, the record clearly shows
that the District Rent Administrator mailed a properly addressed
Notice and Transmittal of Tenant's Complaint to the owner on
December 2, 1986. The letter the owner purports to have sent,
requesting a copy of the complaint, is not in the record and the
owner has not submitted any proof of mailing. Moreover, the
letters sent by the tenant to the owner by certified mail establish
that the owner had actual knowledge of the conditions requiring
As to the owner's contention that repairs were completed, an
inspection held on March 6, 1987 showed that although the painting
and plastering was completed as alleged by the owner; the work was
done in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Commissioner notes that the owner's attempts at rectifying the
service deficiencies is clear proof that he was aware of the nature
of the tenant's complaint.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the petitioner's conten-
tion of no notification is without merit.
Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code provides, in perti-
nent part, that 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 repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record, including the results of
the on-site physical inspection conducted on March 6, 1987 and that
pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was
mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had
failed to maintain services.
However, the record also contains a statement by the tenant sub-
mitted on March 11, 1988, after issuance of the Administrator's
order, that the owner had completed all repairs on January 21, 1988
and that full rent payments were resumed on February 1, 1988. In
accordance with the tenant's statement, the Commissioner deems it
appropriate to order restoration of the rent as of February 1,
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that the petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's rent reduction order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed, and it is further
ORDERED, that the rent be, and the same hereby is restored
effective February 1, 1988.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner