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.: CJ130279RT
Various Tenants of
63-74 Austin Street,
Rego Park, New York,
DOCKET NO.: BJ110015B
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 31, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenants filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 30, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 63-74 Austin Street, Rego Park,
N.Y., various apartments, wherein the Administrator determined that
a reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in
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 apartments.
On October 14, 1987, the tenants filed a building-wide complaint
alleging that the owner failed to maintain services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that all
violations have been corrected and that all service deficiencies
specified in the complaint have been corrected.
A DHCR inspection conducted on August 29, 1988, revealed the
following service deficiencies:
1. The windows in the public area, cranks and locks are
2. There is one unsecured window in the garage area.
3. The linoleum floor tiles and baseboards are cracked and broken
throughout public areas.
4. The public area bulkhead has peeling paint and plaster.
5. The playground wall is covered with graffiti.
6. There are cracked mortar joints in the exterior bricks.
7. There is evidence that the playground benches, see-saws and
the rest of the equipment was removed.
8. The front entrance steps was constructed in an unworkmanlike
9. The incinerator chute located on the first floor is loose,
and is not self closing.
The same inspection revealed that the following services were
1. There is no evidence of broken windows, sashes, sills or
frames in the public areas.
2. The vestibule lock is operative.
3. The main entrance door and lock is operative.
4. The public hall windows have bars and they are operative.
5. There is no evidence of a gap between the baseboard and the
floor in the public area.
6. There is no evidence of vermin infestation in the public area.
7. There is no evidence of rusted fire escapes.
8. There is no evidence of the premises directory not being
9. The public areas were cleaned.
10. There is no evidence of defective sidewalks.
11. There is no evidence of a missing hand railing from the public
12. The roof door is self-closing.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenants asserted, in pertinent part, that
all repairs were not corrected and that those that were corrected
were done in an unworkmanlike manner. The petitioners also
requested that a reinspection be conducted by the DHCR.
The petition was served on the owner on December 6, 1988, and on
December 20, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that if, in fact, the DHCR inspector overlooked any service
deficiencies, then it will correct those deficiencies.
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 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 and maintenance.
The Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's
claim on appeal that the owner failed to correct additional service
deficiencies not specified in the Rent Administrator's rent
reduction order of September 30, 1988.
The file is devoid of any evidence showing that the owner failed to
restore more services than are delineated in the appealed order.
The appealed order clearly granted the Rent Stabilized tenants a
rent reduction and clearly specified the nine (9) existing service
deficiencies and the twelve (12) services that were restored by the
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenants have offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
determination or to establish a basis for the Commissioner to order
a reinspection of the premises.
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 August 29, 1988, pursuant
to Section 2520.6(r) of the Rent Stabilization Law and Code and
that the Rent Administrator properly determined that a rent
reduction was warranted.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA