STATE OF NEW1 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.: BI-210217-RO
: D.R.O. DOCKET
250 REALTY ASSOCIATES, : NO.: BD-210390-S
PETITIONER : TENANT: ELISE ELLERBEE
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 11, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review of an order issued on September 1, 1987
by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known
as 2 Stoddard Place, Apartment 2A, Brooklyn, N.Y., wherein the
Administrator directed the restoration of services, further finding
that a rent reduction based thereon was warranted.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the
record and has carefully considered that portion of the record
relevant to the issues raised by the petition for administrative
This proceeding was commenced on April 14, 1987 by the
tenant's filing of a complaint of decrease in services, alleging
the owner's failure to make repairs to numerous defective
conditions in the subject apartment, including water damaged walls,
vermin infestation and a defective refrigerator.
On April 30, 1987, the Division sent the owner a copy of the
complaint with instructions to file an answer within twenty (20)
The owner responded by letter dated May 7, 1987, requesting a
thirty (30) day extension in which to respond and address the items
set forth in the complaint.
By notice dated June 10, 1987, the Division granted the
owner's request for an extension and further advised that case
processing would resume on June 29, 1987.
No further response from the owner was received.
DOCKET NUMBER: BI-210217-RO
On August 6, 1987, a Division staff member conducted a
physical inspection of the subject apartment to investigate the
tenant's claims. The inspector reported, among other things, that
peeling paint was evident on the walls and ceilings of the living
room, bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and foyer area; that there was
evidence of mice infestation in the kitchen, bathroom and living
room; and that the refrigerator had a compartment temperature of 54
degrees and a freezer compartment temperature of 21 degrees, and
the freezer unit door was missing, the door gasket was worn and
the temperature control regulator was not working.
On September 1, 1987, the Administrator issued the order
hereunder review, reducing the rent to the level that was in effect
prior to the last rent guideline increase based on the above-
mentioned items in the inspector's report.
In the petition, the owner seeks reversal of the order and
claims, in pertinent part, that the tenants are uncooperative and
have failed to provide access to the superintendent and the
contractors despite the owner's (and his workers') attempts at
making prior arrangements for access.
By letters dated November 19, 1987 and January 13, 1988, the
owner supplemented the petition with further documents in support
of work completed subsequent to the issuance of the order.
The record reflects no answer to the petition by the tenant.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the owner's petition
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 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 filed to maintain required
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
Review of the record in the instant case discloses that the
Administrator based his determination on the entire record,
including the results of the August 6, 1987 inspection, which
DOCKET NUMBER: BI-210217-RO
disclosed numerous defective conditions in need of repair or
servicing. Therefore, the Commissioner finds that the
Administrator correctly determined that the owner had failed to
maintain services, and properly reduced the rent pursuant to
Section 2523.4 of the Code.
The petitioner's claim about the tenant's denial of access to
repair persons was not brought to the Division's attention during
the "extension" period or at any later time before the issuance of
the order appealed from, despite the owner's opportunity to do so.
As a result, the Commissioner finds that consideration of this de
novo claim is inappropriate in this appeal proceeding.
This order and opinion is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file an application with the Division for a
restoration of rent based upon a restoration of services, if the
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner