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.: CE110216R0
Visutton Management Corp., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
DOCKET NO.: BJ110347S
PETITIONER PREMISES: Apt. 9R
99-40 63rd. Rd.
Rego Park, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on April 28, 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 October 5, 1987 by a tenant filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
On November 30, 1987, a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the
owner with notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an
By letter received on December 18, 1987, the owner requested an
extension to file an answer until March 31, 1988. In its letter, the
owner states that "if we do not hear from you prior to this date, we
must assume it has been accepted."
On January 7, 1988, DHCR requested the owner for more specific
information including, but not limited to, "schedules for commencing
and completing the work."
The owner failed to respond to DHCR's request.
On February 16, 1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
By order dated April 28, 1988, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
stabilized rent based on these inspection results:
1. The floor tiles have holes throughout.
2. The kitchen window screen is missing.
3. The kitchen walls are uneven and peeling paint.
4. The two bedroom windows have air seepage.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner contends that
by a letter dated March 17, 1988, it requested DHCR for further
extension until April 30, 1988, stating that "if we do not hear from
you to the contrary we will assume such extension has been granted";
and that it was not notified by DHCR that this request was denied.
On July 15, 1988, DHCR mailed the tenant a copy of the owner's
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be denied.
The record clearly shows that the Administrator's determination was
properly based on a timely inspection which found defective
conditions in the subject apartment, warranting a rent reduction.
Although a copy of the complaint was transmitted to the owner with
notice to the effect that it had 21 days to interpose an answer, the
requested an extension to do so four (4) months later, stating that
"if we do not hear from you prior to this date, we must assume it
has been accepted." Neither denying nor granting the request for an
extension, DHCR answered the owner's letter with an inquiry for more
specific information on "schedules for commencing and completing the
work". The owner failed to respond to DHCR's inquiry. The
Commissioner notes that DHCR was not required to respond in writing
to this extension request and in the absence of a clear, written
grant, the owner could not assume that such a request would be
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administrator was not
in error in refusing a second application to extend the owner's time
to answer more than four (4) months after the answer was due.
The Commissioner notes that the following owner's rent restoration
applications were denied: CJ110091OR on March 13, 1989, EI110178OR
on April 12, 1991, and FI110098OR on July 20, 1992.
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