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.: CH220155RO
DOCKET NO.: BK220083S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On August 17, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
August 5, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 280 86th Street, Brooklyn, N.Y., Apt. A-2,
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 November 5, 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 December 23, 1987,
alleging that all service deficiencies enumerated in the complaint
have been corrected with the exception of the painting of the
apartment. The owner further alleged that the apartment was not
painted because of a pre-existing arrangement with the tenant that
the tenant would be obligated to paint the apartment for a reduced
A DHCR inspection conducted on July 6, 1988, revealed that the
walls and ceilings throughout the apartment were water-stained and
had cracked plaster due to a leak.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
he was not obligated to paint the subject apartment since 1956,
because of a pre-existing agreement with the tenant that the tenant
would assume the obligation of painting his own apartment for a
corresponding reduced monthly rent.
The petition was served on the tenant on October 4, 1988, and on
February 25, 1989, the tenant filed an answer to the petition
denying the existence of a valid painting assumption agreement.
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 whether the tenant agreed to do
his own painting or not, the case at bar deals with the owner's
failure to correct leak damage in the subject apartment and does
not deal with a painting issue.
The inspection held on July 6, 1988, supported the tenant's
contention that the owner failed to correct the cracked plaster and
water staining in a workmanlike 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 July 6, 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
The Commissioner notes that the owner's application for rent
restoration was granted on August 1, 1989, under Docket No.
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