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.:
I.B. SIMKOWITZ REALTY,
c/o FINKELSTEIN, BORAH, SCHWARTZ, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
ALTSCHULER & GOLDSTEIN, P.C. DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On September 19, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 12, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as Apartment 10-A at 680 West End Avenue,
New York, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the
owner was not maintaining certain services, directed restoration of
such services, and ordered a rent reduction.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The record indicates that the tenant filed a complaint on September
11, 1987 alleging that the owner was not maintaining certain
services, including the commode in the main bathroom.
In answer to the complaint, the owner stated in relevant part, that
a tenant-created stoppage in the toilet was cleared on September
20, 1987 and a new flushometer had been installed on June 16, 1987.
The tenant replied that no foreign substance has been removed from
the toilet and the flushometer that was installed did not solve the
A physical inspection by a Division employee on May 25, 1988
revealed that top surface of the toilet in the second bathroom is
cracked and the water pressure requires adjustment in the toilet in
the bathroom for the master bedroom.
Based on this inspection, the order appealed herein was issued by
the Rent Administrator.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts,
through counsel, that the condition cited in the order was tenant-
created, that repairs were completed and then reoccurred, that the
condition is de minimis in nature, and that a rent reduction order
was previously issued for the same condition and remains out-
In answer to the petition, the tenant denies causing the condition,
states that repairs were never done properly, objects to the
characterization of the problem as de minimis, and asserts that
there may be more than one rent reduction order for different
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted
and the Rent Administrator's order should be revoked.
The tenant's complaint referred to the commode in the main bathroom
and made no mention of the toilets in any other bathroom. There
was no notice to the owner of any defect in the "top surface of the
toilet in the second bathroom" and it was improper to order a rent
reduction for this condition.
As for the other toilet, the Division's records indicate that a
rent reduction order was issued on June 11, 1987, in Docket No.
BD410011S for a "defective first bathroom commode" and this rent
reduction remained in effect when the order appealed herein was
issued. Since the rent had already been reduced for the same
condition, a second order is not warranted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted and
the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, revoked.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA