CE210053RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       CE210053RO
               Kingswood Management Corp.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       BJ210783S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On May 23, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on April 18, 
          1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 3855 Shore Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y., 
          Apt. 1-E, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in 
          rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.

          The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On August 5, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain certain services in the subject apartment.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that all the 
          items listed by the tenant have been resolved by the superintendent 
          in conjunction with the tenant.





          A DHCR inspection conducted on December 31, 1987, revealed that 
          although the owner was maintaining some services; other services 












          CE210053RO

          were not being maintained.  More specifically, the report revealed:

               1.   Livingroom window has a rotten sill and is difficult to 
                    open.

               2.   Bedroom window has a rotted sill and will not remain in 
                    the open position.

               3.   Kitchen cabinets located over stove are separated from 
                    the wall.

               4.   Defective top oven door.

               5.   One defective top stove burner.

               6.   Clogged bathtub water drainage.

               7.   Cracked livingroom wall.

               8.   Defective bathroom vent.

               9.   Kitchen light fixture cover is cracked.

          In this petition, the owner states, in substance, that it was not 
          notified of the inspection report and thus not afforded the 
          opportunity to repair these defective conditions prior to the 
          issuance of the Administrator's order.  The petitioner cites ARL-
          60350-Q wherein a proceeding was remanded to the Administrator on 
          the basis that an inspection request and report were not served on 
          the owner prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order to 
          provide the owner with an opportunity to comment on the inspection 
          report.

          The owner also alleged that most of the repair work was completed 
          to the tenant's satisfaction and that access was not fully provided 
          by the tenant to the owner's employees.

          The petition was served on the tenant on June 28, 1988.

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

          The tenant's complaint is sufficient notice to the owner of alleged 
          defective conditions.  The owner was made aware of the defective 
          conditions since the record established that the owner by its 
          attorney in the proceeding below did answer the tenant's complaint.

          Administrative policy and precedent do not require that an owner in 
          this type of case involving decreased services within an individual 
          apartment be given a copy of the inspection results, and the Courts 
          have upheld this procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 






          CE210053RO

          538 N.Y.S. 2d 49, 147 A.D. 2d 642, February 21, 1989).  The 
          Commissioner notes that the Administrative review opinion referred 
          to by petitioner concerning a rent control apartment was issued 
          shortly after the Divisions's takeover of the duties of the Rent 
          Commissioner, almost ten years ago.  It is not and has not been the 
          Division's practice.  In this regard, the Commissioner notes that 
          an inspection report is the work product of a DHCR staff member who 
          conducts an on-site inspection to determine questions of fact which 
          arise after joinder of issue in a proceeding alleging decreased 
          services.  The inspector's work product is an impartial report or 
          finding, and is not a pleading or a probative submission by a party 
          to a proceeding which if not served for response would be a fatal 
          defect in denying due process.

          Moreover, the owner had almost five (5) months from service of the 
          tenant's complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order 
          to investigate the tenant's complaint and to make necessary 
          repairs, but the owner failed to do so.

          Additionally, the Commissioner has considered the owner's argument 
          that access to the subject apartment was denied and rejects this 
          argument.  The file shows clearly that the owner's employees gained 
          access to the subject apartment on several prior occasions and 
          completed sundry repairs in a workmanlike manner.

          Accordingly, the owner was not denied due process and the 
          Administrator's order based on the inspection was correct.

          The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted 
          by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
          order and opinion.

          The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration 
          application was granted on February 6, 1992.  (FE210159OR).

          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. 
                
          ISSUED:
                                                                     
                                             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