STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Seadyck Realty Co.
c/o Parkoff Management,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petitioner for
administrative review of an order issued concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1 Seaman Avenue, Apt. 5D, New York,
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 the petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on
September 8, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the
complaint or otherwise asserted that all required repairs had been
or will be completed.
Thereafter, an inspection of the subject apartment was conducted by
a DHCR inspector on March 29, 1988, who confirmed the existence of
the following defective conditions: The living room ceiling has
large cracks and peeling paint and plaster. There are water stains
in the corner of the ceiling and a bubble on the roof floor which
lies directly above the living room ceiling.
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In its petition for administrative review, dated September 2, 1988,
the owner states, in substance, that the inspector's inspection
does not conform with the tenant's original complaint which was
about an actual leak, which was corrected as soon as the tenant
notified them and they were physically able to correct it. The
owner further states that after a leak is corrected, some time is
needed for the ceiling to dry before they can plaster and paint,
and that the inspector did not see an actual leak, but the
aftermath of an old leak which was already corrected.
The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on October 17,
1988. The tenant asserts that the owner was aware of the leak for
more than two years; that the inspector did not see an actual leak
because it was not raining that day; and that the owner's attempt
to correct the defect was not done professionally and the tenant
refused to sign the release that stipulated that the repairs were
done, until it actually rained, in order to see if the work was
done satisfactorily. Since then it has rained and she confirmed
that the leak still exists.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order a rent reduction, upon application by the tenant,
where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain required
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis for
modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which determined
that the owner was not maintaining required services based on a
physical inspection confirming the existence of defective
conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent reduction is
Since the owner responded to the tenant's complaint on November 24,
1987 and an inspection of the apartment four months later on
March 29, 1988 still revealed the defective condition, the owner
had ample time to repair the leak and the resulting damage caused
by the leak.
The Division's records revealed that the owner's rent restoration
was denied on March 8, 1989 (CH510202OR) and a subsequent
application is pending.
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
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA