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
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CF210125RO
FRHADA ASSOCIATES RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 1, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued April 26, 1988. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 5 located at 1268 52nd Street,
Brooklyn, N.Y. The Administrator directed restoration of services
and ordered a rent reduction based on the owner's failure to
maintain adequate hot water.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 1, 1988 by
filing an application for a rent reduction based on the owner's
failure to maintain adequate hot water.
The owner was served with a copy of the application and
afforded an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
March 21, 1988 and stated that inspections held in conjunction with
other proceedings before the agency reported that adequate hot
water temperature was being maintained, that the owner has
continually paid its gas bill and that tenants are running the hot
water in order to cause the hot water temperature to drop.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on March 28, 1988 and
revealed that the hot water temperature was 107 degrees.
The Administrator issued the order here under review on April
26, 1988 and ordered a rent reduction based on the inspector's
On appeal the owner, as represented by counsel, states that
the owner was entitled to notice of the inspection and an
opportunity to correct the condition reported by the inspector,
that the tenant ran the hot water prior to the inspector's visit
thereby causing the temperature to plunge and that an inspection
held in conjunction with a building-wide rent reduction proceeding
reported adequate hot water leading to the dismissal of the
complaint. The petition was served on the tenant on July 22, 1988.
The tenant filed a response on August 8, 1988 and stated, in
sum, that the water had not been run before the inspection
described above, that the owner was still not maintaining adequate
hot water and that, therefore, the petition should be denied. The
owner filed a reply on November 7, 1988 wherein it essentially
restated the allegation made in the petition.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner notes that it is well settled that an owner
is not entitled to notice of a scheduled DHCR inspection or a copy
of the results. The filing of the complaint puts the owner on
notice of the existence of the condition and the need to
investigate and make repairs. (Empress Manor Apts. v. DHCR 538
N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd Dept., 1989]).
The other grounds raised by the owner are inadequate to rebut
the inspector's report. There is no evidence that the tenant ran
the hot water in the manner suggested by the petitioner and the
tenant retained the right to file the instant complaint regarding
the failure to maintain an ongoing service regardless of the
disposition of any prior proceeding before the DHCR. The order
here under review is affirmed. 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 owner may file for rent restoration when services have
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code it
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