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.: CA130337RO
PARK HILL ASSOCIATES RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On January 28, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner timely
refiled a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of
the Rent Administrator issued on November 2, 1987. The order
concerned the housing accommodations located at 42-45 Kissena
Blvd., Flushing, N.Y., various apartments. The Administrator
directed restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction for
failure to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
This proceeding was commenced on February 4, 1987 when 21
tenants of this 144 unit building filed a Statement of Complaint of
Decrease in Building-Wide Services wherein the tenants alleged, in
sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain required building-
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on
February 23, 1987 and stated, in sum, that it was maintaining
required services in the building.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
building. The inspection was conducted on April 16, 1987 and
revealed the following:
1. North elevator door is defective in that it does
not close by itself unless it is pushed;
2. Inadequate building water pressure; and
3. North side door pane is cracked.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on
November 2, 1987 and ordered a rent reduction in an amount equal to
the most recent guidelines adjustment for tenants' leases
commencing prior to March 1, 1987 based on the inspector's report.
On appeal the owner states, in summary, that it never received
a copy of the original complaint and that it has made the repairs
required by the order being appealed. The petition was served on
the tenants on June 14, 1988. Various tenants filed responses and
stated, in sum, that the owner had not restored services and that
the petition should be denied.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code,
tenants may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction based on the
owner's failure to maintain required services and the rents shall
be reduced if the Administrator determines that such services are
not being maintained. The Code defines required services to be
those services the owner was required to maintain on the applicable
base date including repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this
determination on the entire record including the results of the on-
site physical inspection described above. The owner's contention
that it did not receive notice of the complaint is belied by the
response filed on February 23, 1987 and included in the record. In
that response the owner stated that required services were being
maintained. The owner's other defense, to the effect that it has
made the required repairs, does not challenge the correctness of
the order being appealed at the time it was issued. The order
being appealed is affirmed.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement which
resulted from the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance
of this order and opinion. The Commissioner notes that the owner's
rent restoration application (Docket No. DA130180OR) has been
granted by the Administrator.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
LULA M. ANDERSON