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.: CC210393R0
Hampton Leasing Corp. c/o
Kucker, Kraus and Bruh, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BF210647S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 5D
3205 Emmons Ave.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on February 9, 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 June 25, 1987 by the tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain the
stove and hot water services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner denied the allegations in the tenant's
complaint and otherwise asserted that both items concerning the
stove and hot water services had been dismissed under Docket Number
K003350S. The owner also felt that the tenant filed these complaints
(BI210012B, BG230090B, BI210081S, BI210081S, BI210327S, and
BG210877S) which should be consolidated. However, two were
building-wide complaints initiated by another tenant and three were
filed by a different tenant.
On November 24, 1987, a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who found the stove properly
maintained and further found an inadequate hot water temperature of
95F in the kitchen and bathtub.
By order dated February 9, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of service and ordered a reduction of the stabilized
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends in
substance that its due process rights were violated because DHCR
failed to notify the owner of the inspection or the inspection
results prior to issuance of the Administrator's order; and that the
tenant harasses the owner by numerous complaints which should have
In answer, the tenant denied the allegations in the owner's
In reply, the owner otherwise asserted that the tenant had the
opportunity to run the hot water incessantly to lower the
temperature prior to the inspector's arrival.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The Administrator's determination was based on an on-site inspection
report finding inadequate hot water temperature of 95F from the
kitchen and bathtub. This is a decreased service warranting a rent
reduction. That the tenant runs the hot water constantly to lower
the temperature as asserted by the petitioner was not established.
The Administrator also properly did not consolidate this case with
other complaints alleged by the owner to be raised by the same
tenant because in these complaints (KO03350S, BI210012B, BG230090B,
BI210081S, BI210081S, BI210327S, and BG210877S), one has no
relevance to this proceeding at all, two were building-wide
complaints initiated by another tenant and three were filed by a
The defense that the owner is entitled to notice of an inspection or
copy of the inspection report in the proceeding below is without
merit. The Commissioner notes that the tenant's complaint is
sufficient notice to the owner; that the inspection merely
confirmed one of the allegations in the complaint; and that
accordingly, the owner was not denied due process. FH410081RO;
Empress Manor Apartments v. DHCR, 538 N.Y.S.2d 49, 147 A.D.2d 642.
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