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.: CF620182RO
DOCKET NO.: BH620742S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 20, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition
for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 26, 1988,
by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation
known as 1314 Elder Avenue, Bronx, N.Y., Apt. 1-A, 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 August 28, 1987, one rent controlled tenant filed a complaint
alleging that there was a diminution in services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on November 11, 1987,
which failed to address the service issues raised by the complaint.
A DHCR inspection conducted on April 11, 1988, revealed that:
1. Bathtub backs up and has filthy water and suds.
2. Stove defective and oven rust covered.
3. Living room left-bottom sash chain is broken
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
all repairs were completed and that the stove was replaced.
The petition was served on the tenant on August 22, 1988 and on
September 7, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that certain repairs have not been corrected and that
others were corrected in an unworkmanlike manner. The tenant
confirmed that the owner replaced the stove but stated that the
replacement stove was defective.
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 services may result in an order of decrease in maximum
rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent
A review of the file reveals that a Notice and Transmittal of
Tenant's Complaint was mailed to the owner on October 30, 1987, and
that the owner's answer filed on November 11, 1987, failed to
address the service issues raised in the complaint. The inspection
of April 11, 1988, confirmed that these repairs were still not made
as of this date or that they were made in an unworkmanlike manner.
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 inspection or at any time prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based the
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on April 11, 1988, and that
pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations
the Administrator was authorized to reduce the rent upon
determining that the owner had failed to maintain services.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
Division records show that the owner's application for rent
restoration was partially granted by the Rent Administrator on
March 27, 1991, under docket No. EC620028OR.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Eviction
Regulations for New York, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby, is affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA