STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: CF610211RO
College Management Co. Inc.,
DOCKET NO.: BH610547S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 30, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on June 16,
1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1020 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York,
Apt. 21-X, 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 of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues set forth by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment based upon a reduction in
On August 27, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to maintain services throughout the premises. More
specifically, the tenant alleged that the owner failed to maintain
air-conditioning service; that the public hallways, stairways, and
carpets were dirty and that the hallways were in need of painting.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on November 4, 1987,
alleging that the air-conditioning was repaired on July 16, 1987
and that the premises is cleaned and painted intermittently in
compliance with the law.
A DHCR inspection conducted on April 25, 1988, revealed that the
central air-conditioning system in the subject apartment was
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the air-conditioning system was repaired on July 16, 1987; that the
Rent Administrator denied three other tenants' air-conditioner
complaints and that in those instances where the rent was reduced,
the Rent Administrator incorrectly reduced the rents to November 1,
1987, a month where air-conditioner services are not required.
The petition was served on the tenant on August 31, 1988.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a
tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) for reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR
shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The petitioner's claim that air-conditioner services were corrected
on July 16, 1987, prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's
order, on June 16, 1988, is without foundation.
The inspector's findings of April 25, 1988, belie this claim and
show conclusively that the owner failed to maintain these services.
The Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's
claim that the Rent Administrator denied three other tenants a
reduction in rent based upon a diminution in air-conditioning
The file under Docket No. BG610887S, reveals that air-conditioning
services were not the subject of the DHCR inspection and that the
application was denied because the owner corrected deficient
The file under Docket No. BG610801S reveals that the tenant
withdrew the air-conditioning complaint in that proceeding and that
the owner corrected all other service deficiencies.
Furthermore, an inspection, held on December 2, 1987, under Docket
No. BG610494S, showed that the air-conditioning problem has been
Additionally, there is no apparent basis for petitioner's claim
that the retroactive effective date of the rent reduction to
November 1, 1987, is improper.
The record demonstrates that the tenant's complaint was served on
the owner on October 27, 1987 and, therefore, the effective date of
the rent reduction was properly established as the first of the
month following the date of service or November 1, 1987.
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.
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for
a rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA