OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433


          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. 
                                                             Brooklyn, NY


          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 
          been consolidated.

          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 
          different tenant.

          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, 
          it is 

          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
                                                  Deputy Commissioner


TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name