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.: CC210362R0
GERALD PINDUS, DOCKET NO.: BL210065HW
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. #3A
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on March 2, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by this administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced on December 10, 1987 by a tenant
filing a complaint of inadequate heat and hot water services.
The complaint was served on the owner on December 28, 1987.
On January 5, 1988, the tenant filed a statement that the owner had
continued to fail to maintain heat and hot water services.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment on
February 11, 1988 was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed
the existence of inadequate heat (40F outside temperature and 62F
inside temperature). The inspector found that adequate hot water
(124F) was provided.
By order dated March 2, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of service and a reduction of the stabilized rent.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
the DHCR inspection is either a result of the malfunction of the
inspection equipment or the tenant tampering with the windows or
radiators. The owner submits a copy of a work invoice dated February
11, 1988 to indicate that the heating was found satisfactory in
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 a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. The petition does not establish any basis for modifying or
revoking the Administrator's order which determined that the owner
was not maintaining a required service based on a physical
inspection confirming the existence of inadequate heat (40F outside
temperature and 62F inside temperature).
The petitioner's submission offered neither any evidence relevant to
the subject apartment, nor an explanation for its inspection, or the
coincidence of the date thereof. The Administrator properly relied
on the results of DHCR's February 11, 1988 on site inspection.
Accordingly, the order appealed from was in all respects proper and
is hereby sustained.
It is noted that the owner's rent restoration application
(CC210213OR) was granted on November 17, 1988.
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,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby, is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA