CD520016RO, CB410055RT
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433

          APPEALS                                      DOCKET NOS.:          
                    Frank Skolnick and
                    Dora Palance
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          On February 11, 1988 and April 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner- 
          owner and tenant respectively filed petitions for administrative 
          review (PAR) of an order issued on January 4, 1988, by the Rent 
          Administrator, concerning the housing accommodations known as 200 
          Bennett Avenue, New York, N.Y., various apartments, wherein the 
          Administrator determined that the owner was not maintaining 
          services, directed restoration of services, and ordered a rent 
          reduction for rent controlled tenants only.

          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 administrative appeals.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the rent controlled tenants and properly determined 
          that the rent stabilized tenants were not entitled to a rent 

          On April 7, 1987, the tenants filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain various services in the subject building. 
          The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on June 3, 1987, 
          alleging that all repairs were made by a qualified union 
          superintendent and that the tenants are engaging in a pattern of 
          harassment against the super and himself.

          A DHCR inspection conducted on August 24, 1987, revealed that 
          although sundry services were being maintained, others were not.  

          CD520016RO, CB410055RT

          More specifically, the inspection revealed that the owner failed to 
          maintain the following services:

               1.   The building entrance door lock is inoperative.

               2.   Several hallway window panes are cracked.

               3.   The building entrance sidewalk is broken (area of
                    approximately 11 feet by 27 feet) and hazardous.

               4.   There are two (2) broken building entrance cement steps.

               5.   The top floor bulkhead is water-damaged and peeling paint 
                    and plaster.

          In the appeal under Docket No. CD520016RO, the petitioner-owner 
          asserted, in pertinent part, that the Rent Administrator failed to 
          serve him with a copy of the appealed order; that he was thus 
          deprived of his due process rights and that all repairs were 
          corrected prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.  
          In the appeal under Docket No. CB410055RT, the petitioner-tenant 
          asserted that the Rent Administrator issued rent reductions to 
          rent-controlled tenants, but improperly failed to issue rent 
          reductions for the rent-stabilized tenants.

          With regard to the owner's appeal, under Docket No. CD520016RO, the 
          petition was served on the tenant on May 7, 1990, and on May 28, 
          1990, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating, among 
          other things, that the owner's petition was untimely.  With regard 
          to the tenant's appeal, under Docket No. CB410055RT, the petition 
          was served on the owner on May 5, 1988, but the owner failed to 
          file an answer to the petition.

          After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeals 
          should be denied.

          For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and 
          Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed 
          to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease 
          in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the 
          Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because 
          of the decrease in services.

          Regarding the owner's claim in Docket No. CD520016RO, that his 
          right of due process was violated due to the failure of the DHCR to 
          properly serve him with a copy of the appealed order, the record 
          clearly shows that he was served with a copy of the tenant's 

          CD520016RO, CB410055RT

          complaint on May 5, 1987 and that he filed an answer on June 3, 

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the answer filed below 
          belies the owner's contention on appeal that it failed to receive 
          notice of the proceedings and that its rights of due process were 

          A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that 
          the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted 
          on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at 
          the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any time prior to the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order.

          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 24, 1987, and that 
          pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations a 
          rent reduction reflecting the reduced rental value of the 
          accommodation because of the decreased services was warranted for 
          all rent controlled tenants in the building.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner further finds that the owner has 
          offered insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's 

          With regard to the tenant's claim in Docket No. CB410055RT that the 
          Rent Administrator erred by failing to reduce the rents of rent 
          stabilized tenants, the Commissioner finds this argument to be 
          without merit.

          A review of the rent stabilized tenants' complaint shows that they 
          did not request a rent reduction. 

          Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a), of the Rent Stabilization Code, the 
          Division is required to order a rent reduction based on a finding 
          of failure to maintain services only when the tenants apply for a 
          rent reduction.  No error was committed, therefore, when the Rent 
          Administrator did not issue a rent reduction for the rent 
          stabilized tenants.  The Commissioner notes, however, that the 
          owner remains obligated to restore services and risks additional 
          penalties for failing to comply.

          The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the Administrator properly 
          reduced the rents of the rent controlled apartments and that 
          pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, the 
          Administrator was authorized to reduce the rents of the rent 
          stabilized tenants only when the tenants apply for a rent 

          CD520016RO, CB410055RT

          The Commissioner notes that on the owner's applications, under 
          Dockets DD530149OR and ED530050OR, the rents previously reduced by 
          order issued on January 4, 1988, under Docket No. BD530045B, were 
          restored on November 17, 1989 ($14.00) and May 30, 1990 ($4.00), 
          based upon restoration of all services, prospectively for 
          controlled tenants.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent 
          Stabilization Law and Code and the Rent and Eviction Regulations 
          for New York City, it is

          ORDERED, that the administrative appeals be, and the same hereby 
          are, denied and that the Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.    


                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner  

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name