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.:
IVAN STUX, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER BF 410108-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 29, 1987 the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued September 24, 1987. The order concerned
housing accommodations known as Apartment 1-A located at 520 West
End Avenue, New York, New York. The Administrator ordered a rent
reduction due to decreased apartment services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and h s carefully con-
sidered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint al-
leging decreased apartment services. The following services
were complained of:
1. Ceiling - water leak stain and bubbled paint.
2. Floor section (16 sq. ft.) water damaged. Tiles
peeling and floor warped.
3. Windows - splintered casement. Windows slip side-
to-side - won't open fully or stay open.
4. Paint peeling. Walls never sanded after last
1. Riser water stained.
2. Wall is water stained.
3. Ceiling stained and sagging.
4. Window inoperable.
5. Parquet floor water damaged and warped in places.
6. Closet light fixture missing.
7. Closet saddle missing.
8. Walls never sanded after last repair.
1. Stove handles are broken.
2. Floor at counter side sinks from level of rest of
3. Roach access from basement causing infestation.
1. Loose and detached wall tiles.
2. Window inoperable.
3. Window sill wood cracked, with open spaces.
4. Faucet drips.
5. Steam riser rusted.
1. Entrance door sticks.
2. Bell buzzer wires exposed.
3. Ceiling lamp fixture loose and hanging.
4. Door saddle missing.
5. Floor tile pieces missing and floor unsupported in
6. Closet floor tile pieces missing and floor tiles
7. Walls around door need sanding.
8. Tile ceiling stained and sagging.
The owner failed to respond. The Administrator ordered a phy-
sical inspection of the premises which was conducted on August 7,
1987. The inspector found the following services deficiencies:
1. Peeling paint and plaster throughout apartment.
2. Floor tiles shaky and warped throughout apartment.
3. Defective windows throughout.
4. Two stove handles are missing.
5. Hot water faucet in sink leaks.
6. Saddle missing from entrance door.
7. Bell buzzer wire exposed, light fixture is
8. Roach infestation.
The Administrator's order duly followed.
On appeal the owner, through counsel, denies that any of the
reported conditions exist. Petitioner advances the following
1. An inspection by the New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development and
one by petitioner, conducted on or about the
time that the DHCR inspection was held, found
no services problems.
2. Petitioner was neither notified of the conditions
in the apartment nor notified of the DHCR inspec-
3. The ceiling was repaired on February 11, 1986 and
the tenant never complained of peeling paint and
4. Numerous apartment repairs were conducted from
April to August 1986.
5. Painting and plastering was done "throughout 1986
and in February 1987."
6. Regular extermination services are provided to the
The owner attached copies of bills and invoices from contractors
The tenant filed a lengthy response to the petition. In that
response she again detailed the numerous services deficiencies in
the apartment. Petitioner filed a response to the answer. In
that response petitioner alleged inter alia that a stipulation of
settlement entered into as a result of a Civil Court non-payment
proceeding set forth the items which petitioner agreed to repair.
The owner also restated its contentions as advanced in the orig-
After a careful review of the evidence in the record t e Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code provides:
"A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduc-
tion 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 ser-
Required services are defined in Section 2520.5(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on August 7, 1987.
Due process does not require that an owner who has been served
with a copy of a tenant's complaint listing conditions requiring
repair be notified of a forthcoming inspection or served with a
copy of an inspection report confirming the existence of those
conditions before a rent reduction can be ordered. Accordingly,
that aspect of petitioner's argument is rejected.
Petitioner offers no proof as to when or whether the alleged HPD
inspection took place. In any event, DHCR requirements for main
tenance of services are independent of any other agency and the
results of non-DHCR inspections have no bearings on the Divi-
Petitioner's statements regarding repairs and apartment mainten-
ance are contradicted by the inspector's report. It is settled
that this report is entitled to more probative weight than the
unsupported assertions of a party to t e proceeding. The Com-
missioner notes that, in petitioner's response to the tenant's
answer, a stipulation of repairs is set forth. That stipulation
can be viewed as an admission, by the owner, that repairs are
needed to correct services problems in the apartment. The owner
may file for rent restoration when services have been completely
restored. The Administrator's order is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, and
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby