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.:
125 EASTERN PARKWAY ASSOCIATES,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Peti-
tion for Administrative Review (PAR) of an order issued on July 15,
1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda-
tion known as 125 Eastern Parkway, Apartment 2-F, Brooklyn,
New York, 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 raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the owner was providing heat and hot-
On February 29, 1988, the tenant filed a heat and hot-water
complaint alleging that these services were not provided from
January 1, 1988 to January 20, 1988. On May 19, 1988, the tenant
notified the Rent Administrator that the owner has continued to
fail to maintain heat and hot water services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that a new
combination oil and gas boiler was installed and that heat and hot-
water services are being provided.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection con-
ducted on June 24, 1988, revealed that the hot-water was inadequate
in the kitchen and bathroom; that the water temperature was 95@ F.
and that there was no hot-water from the bath tub.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
hot and cold water was temporarily interrupted during the last two
weeks of June in order to replace cold water storage tanks and that
a building notice was appropriately posted. The owner further
alleged that there were no other water problems from this point on.
The petition was served on the tenant in September, 1988 and on
October 12, 1988, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
stating that she does not remember any notices being posted by the
owner and that she was still having hot-water problems.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations provides that
an owner's failure 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. Essential services, as
defined by Section 2200.3(b) include heat and hot water.
Housing Maintenance Code Regulations relating to supply of hot-
water provide as follows:
Section 27-2031 Supply of hot water when required:
Except as otherwise provided in this article,
every bath, shower, washbasin and sink in any
dwelling unit in a multiple dwelling . . . . .
shall be supplied at all times (Between the
hours of 6:00 a.m. and midnight) with hot
water at a constant minimum temperature of
120@ F. from a central source constructed in
accordance with provisions of the building
code and the regulations of the department.
The results of the inspection confirm the tenant's complaint that
the owner failed to meet the standard set forth in Section 27-2031
of the Housing Maintenance Code.
The owner did not submit any evidence that the hot-water deficien-
cies 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 owner had almost five (5) months to correct the problem, but
had failed to do so or to provide an acceptable and sufficient
alternative in the interim.
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 June 24, 1988, and that
pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations,
the Administrator was authorized to reduce the rent upon deter-
mining 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 deter-
mination. The rent will be restored only when the owner's rent
restoration application is filed and granted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations for New York City, 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