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.:
Eunice S. Matthew,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 10, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on July
29, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 132 Lafayette Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y.,
various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that a
reduction in rent was warranted for Apartment 2-F, a rent
controlled apartment, based upon a reduction in services.
However, the rent stabilized apartments were found not to warrant
a rent reduction. In the latter case, the owner was directed to
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 17, 1987, the tenants filed a building-wide complaint
alleging that the owner failed to maintain building-wide services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on January 9, 1988,
alleging that the building is constantly maintained and that the
hallways do not have cracked or falling plaster throughout the
building. The owner further stated that the hallways are repaired
when found to be in disrepair.
A DHCR inspection conducted on February 24, 1988, revealed that
building-wide services were substantially restored except for the
public halls, which were found to be cracked and in need of
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the inspector erred and that the public halls were constantly
maintained and that they were restored whenever necessary.
The petition was served on the tenants on October 6, 1998 and on
October 11, 1988 the tenant of Apartment 2-F filed an answer to the
petition stating that although some work was done on the public
halls they were still in a state of disrepair.
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. Essential services are defined in Section
2200.3 to include repairs and maintenance.
The inspection held on February 24, 1988, demonstrates that the
walls of the public hall required repairs.
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 February 24, 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
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.
Upon a restoration of services, the owner may separately apply for
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA