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. CA 410066-RO
DISTRICT RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
CBBW REALTY CORPORATION, DOCKET NO. BF 410241-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 14, 1988, the above-named owner filed a petition for
administrative review of an order issued on January 4, 1988 by a District
Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodation known as Apartment
4-A, 152 West 44th Street, New York, New York wherein rent was reduced due
to a diminution of service.
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 for review.
On June 3, 1987 the subject tenant filed an application for a rent
reduction based on the owner's alleged failure to maintain services,
alleging that the windows were defective and the bathtub was rusty.
On November 18, 1987 a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
carried out by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The
inspector, in his report, noted that the complained of conditions were as
alleged by the tenant.
On January 4, 1988 the District Rent Administrator issued the order here
under review finding that the owner failed to answer, and that a
diminution of services had occurred and reducing the tenant's rent to the
level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase which commenced
before the effective date of the rent reduction.
The owner's petition asserts that the tenant has denied the owner access
for making repairs; that the owner has made numerous requests for access
to the subject apartment; that the tenant did not inform the owner of the
need for repairs; that the tenant has made prior false claims in a
separate complaint filed with the rent agency, and that the owner did
submit an answer to the Administrator in this proceeding.
The tenant's answer to the owner's petition, which was filed on March 1,
1988, asserts that the owner never attempted to obtain access to the
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
owner's petition should be denied.
DOCKET NUMBER: CA 410066-RO
The Commissioner notes that the owner submits an answer to the tenant's
complaint, dated August 18, 1987, which was attached to the petition,
stating that the tenant failed to allow the owner access to the subject
apartment, and that the tenant "abused and misused" the bathtub, sink,
kitchen sink and stove thereby damaging it.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the aforementioned answer does not
state anything which would warrant modification of the order here under
review, as the owner did not substantiate any of the allegations stated in
As to the owner's assertion that numerous requests for access had been
made, the Commissioner finds that the owner did not submit any proof of
such requests, e.g., a letter to the complainant requesting access to the
subject apartment, or a letter to the tenant requesting that he call the
owner to set up an appointment for access. Furthermore, this assertion by
the owner is apparently contradicted by his allegation in the petition,
that the tenant did not report the alleged defects to the owner.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner did not request access
to the subject apartment for the purpose of making repairs, and therefore,
the complainant did not refuse to provide access.
As to the issues raised by the owner concerning separate proceedings
brought before this agency the Commissioner's determination is based on an
independent finding, not dependent upon an assessment of the tenant's
credibility in another proceeding, and therefore, will not be reviewed by
The Commissioner notes that this order is issued without prejudice to the
owner's right to file an application for a restoration of rent when the
service defects found in this proceeding have been repaired.
Accordingly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrator's
order should be affirmed.
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 District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,