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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
ROSE REALTY COMPANY, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER TENANT: GLADYS COOPERMAN
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 29, 1987, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on October 9, 1987, by
the District Rent Administrator at Gertz Plaza, Jamaica,
New York, concerning the housing accommodation known as Apart-
ment 2-X at 1120 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York,
wherein the Administrator directed the restoration of services,
further finding that a rent reduction based thereon was war-
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 review.
On June 15, 1987 the subject rent-controlled tenant filed a
complaint of a reduction in services further seeking a rent
reduction based thereon.
On August 12, 1987 the owner interposed an answer to the tenant's
complaint alleging that the tenant was entitled to a paint job
and she "may contact our painter Jimmy directly . . . to set up a
mutually convenient appointment."
On September 2, 1987 a physical inspection of the subject housing
accommodation was conducted by the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR). The inspector's report confirmed that
the tenant's kitchen ceiling was badly damaged from water, the
entire ceiling exhibiting cracked and water damaged plaster.
That report also stated that the small bedroom ceiling had
cracked plaster, and the living room walls and ceiling, as well
as the foyer ceiling had peeling paint.
On October 9, 1987, the Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review, finding that a diminution of services had occurred
(that is "kitchen ceiling is badly water damaged, plus peeling
plaster") and reducing the tenant's rent by $4.00 a month.
In its petition, the owner contends that the Administrator erred
in that its answer of August 12, 1987 shifted the onus for
getting the defects repaired to the tenant and it was inequitable
to reduce the rent the owner was entitled to receive because, in
essence, the tenant did not arrange for the work to be done
before the rent reduction order was issued.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The Commissioner finds that in the owner's August 12, 1987 answer
below, the owner did not state that it had communicated directly
with the tenant to advise her of the availability of the owner's
painter. The Commissioner also finds that the defect complained
of involved extensive water damage which may not have been
repairable by a paint job. The owner did not address this latter
issue at all. The Commissioner, therefore, finds that the own-
er's answer below did not shift the onus to the tenant for seeing
that the repairs were timely done; and the Administrator's order
reducing the rent should be affirmed.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the City Rent Law
and the Rent and Eviction Regulations, it is,
ORDERED, that this Petition for Administrative Review be, and the
same hereby is, denied, and, that the order of the Rent Adminis-
trator be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.