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.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued concerning the
housing accommodation known as 65 Morton Street, Apartment 3-J,
New York, New York.
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.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on
March 2, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, the owner stated that the tenants answered a ques-
tionnaire which polled their opinions on the state of the services
in the building and none of the services received a poor rating.
He further stated that the tenant is using these complaints to buy
time because of his inability to pay his rent due to changes in his
financial situation. The owner also claimed that he could not
obtain access to the tenant's apartment to do the necessary repair
The tenant responded that he has always made his apartment acces-
sible for repairs.
An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted by a Division
of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector on July 24, 1987
who confirmed the existence of the following defective conditions:
1. Pilot light on stove was defective.
2. Evidence of mice infestation.
3. Electric wiring in living room ceiling fixture
A second inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on
September 11, 1987, on items that were missing from the first
inspection. The following defective conditions were found to
1. Shut off valve in the bathroom leaks. There
is leak damage to the tiles in the bathroom.
2. Approximately one square foot of tiles were
missing from over the bathroom faucets.
3. Evidence of roach infestation.
4. Defective fixture in kitchen/living room
Based on the conflicting claims regarding access, an inspection for
access was scheduled for March 7, 1989. The tenant provided access,
however, the owner did not appear at the appointed time. The second
inspection for access was scheduled for March 16, 1988. At that
time the following defective items existed:
1. Apartment walls and ceiling have peeling paint
and plaster. There are cracks due to water
2. The light fixture in the bathroom is inopera-
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that the bathroom light fixture is brand new and in good
working order. Also, the entire apartment is in the process of
being replastered and painted wherever necessary.
The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on July 19,
1988. The tenant answered that the bathroom light fixture does not
work, the water damage in the ceiling has damaged the electrical
wiring and the ceiling, the apartment has not been replastered and
painted and the owner's claims of no-access are unfounded since he
has the keys to the apartment.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the
tenant, where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain
required services. The owner's petition does not establish any
basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which
determined that the owner was not maintaining required services
based on a physical inspection confirming the existence of de-
fective conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent
reduction is warranted.
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restora-
tion application was granted on October 15, 1991 (Docket No.
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.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA