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.: CF210246RO
A. RICHARD PARKOFF RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 27, 1988 the above named petitioner-owner filed a Petition
for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued June 2, 1988 concerning the housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3P, 345 Montgomery Street, Brooklyn,
NY, wherein the Administrator found that certain services were not
being provided or maintained, directed restoration of such
services, and reduced the maximum legal rent by $19.50 per month.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence of record and has
carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues raised on
A review of the record reveals that on March 1, 1988, the tenant
filed a complaint in which she alleged that the owner had failed to
make certain repairs in her apartment.
In an answer to the complaint dated April 21, 1988, the owner
stated that it is ready, willing and able to comply, that work
orders have been prepared, and that upon completion of the work,
copies of the work orders signed by the tenant will be submitted.
An inspection by DHCR on April 25, 1988 revealed that the repairs
had not been made. Based on the results of this inspection, the
Rent Administrator reduced the maximum legal rent by $9.00 for
peeling paint and plaster and waterstains on the bathroom, kitchen
and master bedroom ceilings; $2.00 defective and exposed wiring on
the ceiling light in the second bedroom; $2.00 for the defective
bathroom light switch and fixture; $2.00 for loose and missing
bathroom floor tiles; $1.50 for a broken glass pane in the bathroom
window; and $3.00 for a broken bathroom toilet seat.
In the petition for administrative review, the owner asserts that
this is a second order to reduce rent resulting in a double
In answer to the petition, the tenant urges that the petition be
denied because the repairs have not been done.
After careful consideration of the evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Division's records reveal that an order was issued on October
28, 1986 under Docket No. AF220608S ordering the rent for the
subject apartment reduced to the level in effect prior to the last
rent guideline increase because the "bathroom ceiling has fallen
down due to leaks. There is peeling paint and plaster." No appeal
of this order was taken by either party.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that since the aforementioned
order erroneously reduced the rent for this rent controlled
apartment by a guideline, such a rent reduction is meaningless and
had no effect. The order is therefore a nullity in terms of
reducing the rent that cannot serve to bar a subsequent rent
reduction order which properly states a dollar amount from taking
effect. Moreover, the two orders do not state identical conditions
requiring repair and, in fact, are duplicative only with regard to
the bathroom ceiling.
The order appealed herein was properly based on a physical
inspection which revealed that the necessary repairs had not been
completed and a rent reduction was properly ordered by the Rent
The Divison's records reveal the owner's rent restoration
application was granted on May 2, 1991 (Docket No. EI210153OR).
Therefore in accordance with the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is
ORDERED that this petition be and the same hereby is denied and the
Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA