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.:
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 6, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti-
tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 25,
1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda-
tion known as 8320 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment C-44,
wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent was
warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of 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 administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On November 25, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that
the owner was not maintaining services. More specifically, the
tenant alleged that there were water leaks in the living room and
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on January 6, 1988,
alleging that the roof was checked; that all necessary repair
materials had been purchased and that the ceiling will be repaired.
A DHCR inspection conducted on January 6, 1988, revealed leaks and
water damage on the living room, bedroom and foyer walls and
ceilings. A reinspection held on April 6, 1988, revealed that some
patch-work was done on the roof above the tenant's apartment but
that there was still water damage on the living room and bedroom
walls and ceilings.
On appeal the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the subject apartment was painted in May, 1988.
The petition was served on the tenant on July 28, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the Administrative appeal
should be denied.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed
to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease
in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the
Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because
of the decrease in services.
Both the inspection of January 6,1988 and the reinspection of April
6, 1988, revealed that the owner failed to fully correct the water
leak or its resultant damage.
A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that
the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted
on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at
the time of the DHCR's inspections or at any time prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspections conducted on January 6, 1988 and April
6, 1988, and that pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations a rent reduction reflecting the reduced rental
value of the accommodation because of the decreased services was
Accordingly, the Commissioner further finds that the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
The Commissioner notes that on May 22,1991, the owner's application
for a restoration of rent was denied by the Rent Administrator,
under Docket No. EK220129OR based upon an inspection of the
premises on February 8, 1991 which disclosed that the water damage
and peeling paint throughout the subject apartment had not be
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately reapply for
a rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA