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.:
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW,
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review (PAR) of an order issued on November 2, 1988, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 45 Tiemann Place, New York,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined that certain
conditions found in the subject building constituted services
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 this proceeding by filing a complaint as-
serting that the owner had failed to maintain certain services in
the subject building.
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 premises was conducted by
a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspector who
confirmed that floor tiles were cracked along the length of the
lobby, that the building entrance door marble saddle was cracked
and that the sidewalk concrete had cracks. The majority of the
conditions cited in the complaint were not confirmed or were found
to have been repaired.
The Rent Administrator directed a restoration of these services,
and ordered a reduction of the control rents only.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner argues, in
substance, that the order herein under appeal was inconsistent with
a prior order wherein the Administrator did not impose a rent
reduction for the same defective conditions, in that the conditions
were minor items not warranting rent reductions and that the
failure to give notice of the inspection or the results was incon-
sistent with the Division's then practice and constituted a denial
of due process.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted in part.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order a rent reduction upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. Under Section 2202.16 of the Rent & Eviction Regula-
tions, DHCR may order a rent reduction where it is found that an
owner has failed to maintain essential services, which may include
but are not limited to repairs, decorating and maintenance, among
The owner's claim that the order below was inconsistent with sepa-
rate prior proceedings, commencing with Docket No. USC00101B and
processed through various administrative appeals, rent restoration
proceedings and judicial appeals (ART00148U; BC430142OR; SJR No.
3390; BC530444RO; BD410042RT through BD410052RT), is not accurate.
Final determinations in those proceedings reflected that a defec-
tive marble door saddle and cracked lobby floor tiles were not de
minimis, constituted services decreases, and warranted rent reduc-
The Commissioner finds, however, that the $4.00 per month rent
reduction, granted to rent controlled tenants for the defective
marble door saddle and cracked lobby floor, was duplicative of a
rent reduction granted in the order per Docket No. ART0748U, dated
January 23, 1985, amending the underlying Administrator's order per
Docket No. USC00101B. It is further noted that they, and the re-
lated proceedings, culminated in an order pursuant to remand, per
Docket No. BD420064RP, dated June 24, 1991, that restored the rent
controlled rent by $4.00 per month effective July 1, 1991 based on
the results of an inspection conducted on May 29, 1991 that found
that the conditions had been corrected.
The owner's petition does not show any basis for modifying or
revoking that part of the Administrator's order that granted a
$2.00 rent reduction for cracks in the sidewalk concrete, based on
August 29, 1988 and October 7, 1988 inspections of the subject
premises. Records do reveal that the Rent Administrator issued an
order on February 27, 1992 per Docket No. FD410288OR that denied a
rent restoration for this item.
Concerning the owner's claim that it was denied due process because
it was not given the notice of the inspection or copies of the
reports, the Commissioner notes that due process does not require
that notice or an opportunity to respond. The owner was afforded
due process rights by service of the tenants' complaint.
If partial rent arrears are due the owner from the rent controlled
tenants as a result of this order, they shall be paid in monthly
installments equal to the number of months the tenants' rent reduc-
tion was in effect.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, the City Rent Control Law, and the Rent
and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted, in
part, to the extent of amending the Administrator's order to revoke
as duplicative the rent reduction granted to controlled tenants
based on findings of a defective door saddle and cracked lobby
tiles. The rent reduction predicated on sidewalk cracks is
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA