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.: CI410111RT
LORRAINE LINTON RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On September 30, 1988 the above named petitioner-tenant filed
a Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued on August 29, 1988. The order concerned the
housing accommodations known as Apt. 5E located at 145 West 71st
Street, New York, N.Y. The Administrator issued an order pursuant
to a remand from the Commissioner revoking a previously issued rent
reduction order and rent restoration order.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
This proceeding was originally commenced on June 23, 1986 by
the filing of a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Building-Wide
Services wherein the complaining tenants alleged, in sum, that the
owner was not maintaining certain required building-wide services.
The proceeding was assigned Docket No. AF430092B.
The Administrator issued a rent reduction order on February
10, 1987 and ordered a rent reduction based on findings of a
littered back yard, broken and cracked panes on the basement
windows and outside window sills decayed and rotten.
The owner filed an administrative appeal of the
Administrator's order and alleged, in relevant part, that the rents
had been reduced based on findings of conditions not set forth in
the complaint. The appeal was assigned Docket No. BC410217RO.
While the administrative appeal was pending the owner applied for
and was denied rent restoration (Docket No. BC430141OR). The owner
filed an administrative appeal of the rent restoration denial.
That appeal was assigned Docket No. BL430291RO. The Commissioner
consolidated the above referenced appeals for the purposes of
decision. On April 29, 1988 the Commissioner issued an order
remanding both proceedings to the Administrator. The Commissioner
ruled that, since the case file in Docket No. AF430092B was
missing, there was insufficient information to consider the owner's
appeals on the merits. The Administrator was directed to
reconstruct the missing file and to issue a new order on remand.
On May 11, 1988 the Administrator sent a notice of proposed
reopening to the parties pursuant to the Commissioner's remand
order. The parties were directed to submit copies of the complaint
to the Administrator. The Administrator noted the owner's
allegation that the rents had been reduced based on conditions not
included in the original complaint.
The petitioner-tenant herein responded to the Administrator's
notice on May 18, 1988 and alleged, in relevant part, that the sash
cords on the windows were missing and that the window sills had
peeling paint. The owner also responded to the notice on June 15,
1988 and supplied a copy of the complaint.
The Administrator issued the order being appealed on August
29, 1988, wherein the Administrator revoked the orders issued in
Docket Nos. AF430092B and BC430141OR and ordered the rents restored
to the full legal amount plus all subsequent lawful increases. The
Administrator's order was based on a finding that the conditions
cited in the rent reduction order were not included in the original
On appeal the tenant states, in substance, that nothing has
been repaired. The petition was served on the owner on November
The owner filed a response on December 29, 1988 and stated
that the petition should be denied since the tenant did not allege
any valid grounds on which to revoke the order appealed herein.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
The Commissioner's review of the complaint contained in the
record of Docket No. CE430002RP reveals that the owner is correct
in stating that the rents were reduced for conditions the tenants
did not complain about. Since the owner was not on notice of the
need to investigate these conditions and make repairs, due process
considerations require that no rent reduction be imposed. The
order being appealed, which revoked the prior orders and restored
the rent, was correctly issued and is affirmed.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
LULA M. ANDERSON