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


          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.: CE110217R0 
          J.H. Winfrey/
          Carol Management Corp.,                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.: BI110304S      

                          PETITIONER              PREMISES:  Apt. 11X
                                                             99-05 63rd.Dr.
                                                             Rego Park, NY


          The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
          review of an order issued on April 27, 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 September 21, 1987 by a tenant 
          filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain 
          various  services in the subject apartment.

          On November 6, 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 your agency to the 
          contrary, we will assume such request has been granted."

          On January 7, 1988, DHCR requested the owner to submit 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 19, 1988, a physical inspection of the apartment was 
          conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of 
          defective conditions.

          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 recently plastered wall located under the kitchen sink  
                  requires painting.
               2. The kitchen wall located above the sink was painted over    
                  peeling paint and rotted wood in an unworkmanlike           
               3. The bathroom ceiling and walls are peeling paint and        
               4. There are rust-covered sills in the living room, two        
                  bedrooms and the dining area.

          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"; 
          that this extension is necessary to do exterior repairs during warm 
          weather; and that it was not notified by DHCR that this request was 

          In answer, the tenant asserted that the owner's petition does not 
          contest the findings of the timely inspection; and that the owner's 
          alleged reason for extension depends on warm weather and exterior 
          repairs has no bearing on the decreased services within the 

          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.
          The determination was in all respects proper and is hereby 

          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 
          the owner 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 granted.

          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 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