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.: CG610180RO
H & R Executive Towers RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
c/o College Management, : DOCKET NO.: BG610484S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On July 8, 1988, the above-name petitioner-owner timely refiled a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May
9, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 1020 Grand Concourse, Bronx, N.Y., Apt. #8-
J, wherein the Administrator determined that the 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
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On July 10, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging, in
pertinent part, that the owner failed to provide scraping and
painting services in the living room and bathroom and that the
central air conditioning is inoperable.
The record contains an answer to complaint dated April 11, 1988,
alleging that the air-conditioner has been corrected.
A DHCR inspection conducted on December 8, 1987, revealed that the
living room ceiling and walls were peeling paint and plaster. The
inspector reported that the tenant was withdrawing the air
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
on October 30, 1987, the living room and bathroom ceilings and
walls were scraped and painted and that the tenant and painter
signed a work-order attesting to this fact. The owner further
alleged that the tenant filed multiple service complaints for the
same service items.
The tenant did not file an answer to the petition.
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 a 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, painting and maintenance.
The record shows that a Notice and Transmittal of Tenants'
complaint was mailed to the owner on August 14, 1987, at the
owner's correct address but that the owner failed to submit an
answer below which addressed the tenant's claim that scraping and
painting services were not being provided in livingroom and
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner failed to
adequately answer the tenants' complaint and that the inspection
confirmed the existence of those conditions specified in the
Nearly nine months had elapsed from the time a copy of the tenants'
complaint was mailed to the owner to the time the Rent
Administrator's order was issued on May 9, 1988.
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. In fact, the owner alleged
that the scraping and painting services in the living room and
bathroom were corrected on October 30, 1987, but the record shows
that the DHCR inspection was held on December 8, 1987, after the
date the owner claims repairs were made.
The commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's
claim that duplicate service complaints were filed by the tenant
and rejects this argument.
The other proceeding referred to by the petitioner which was filed
under Docket Number AI610340S, involved entirely different service
conditions and was not germane to the present proceeding.
The Commissioner notes that the verso of the appealed order clearly
Notice to Owner/Landlord and Tenant:
For a rent controlled apartment where there is
already an Order Reducing Maximum Rent in
effect for a decrease service specifically
contained herein, or for a rent stabilized
apartment where such an Order is already in
effect for any type of decreased service, no
further rent reduction is authorized by this
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on December 8, 1987, and that
pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator was
mandated to issue the order appealed herein upon determining that
the owner had failed to maintain services, but that the order did
not result in a second rent reduction if one was already in effect.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
Upon a complete restoration of services the owner may separately
apply for full rent restoration.
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.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that the administrative appeal be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby
Joseph A. D'Agosta