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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NOS.:
Carol Dudley, Samuel Heyman,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 18, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant and owner
filed petitions for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued
on September 22, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 832 Classon Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y.,
Apt. 1-R, 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 appeals.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On November 24, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that
the owner failed to maintain services in the subject apartment.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint, on January 5, 1988,
alleging that the tenant is lodging false service complaints as a
ploy to avoid paying legitimate rent increases at lease renewal
A DHCR inspection conducted on August 3, 1988, revealed that
although some services had been restored the following repairs had
not been made:
1. Toilet does not flush.
2. Evidence of water bugs, roaches and rats.
3. Kitchen radiator is loose.
4. Inadequate exterminator service.
5. Lock on hallway door.
6. Defective apartment bell.
7. Leaking toilet tank.
8. Stove knob missing and broken oven door.
9. Bedroom, bath, walls and ceiling have dirty surfaces.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
most everything in the apartment is broken; that there are leaks
throughout the apartment and that the owner failed to paint the
apartment. On the owner's appeal, the owner asserted, in pertinent
part, that the tenant is inflicting damage to her own apartment;
that the apartment has been periodically painted according to the
dictates of law; that the tenant is an inveterate liar and that the
DHCR failed to conduct an inspection of the subject apartment.
In Docket No. CJ210167RT, the petition was served on the owner on
November 29, 1988 and on December 14, 1988, the owner filed an
answer to the petition stating that the tenant and her son are
destructive of property in the apartment and that the rest of their
PAR is a tissue of lies.
In Docket No. CJ210121RO, the petition was served on the tenant on
November 22, 1988 and on November 25, 1988, the tenant filed an
answer to the petition stating that the owner's statements on
appeal are lies and that the owner failed to provide services.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeals
should be denied.
A review of the record, in Docket No. CJ210167RT, shows that the
Rent Administrator granted the tenant a reduction in rent, on
September 22, 1988, under Docket No. BK210286S.
Consequently, the tenant's petition on appeal has not put a
specific justiciable issue before the Commissioner; nor does it set
forth any reasons to challenge the Rent Administrator's
determination as the relief requested by the petitioner has already
The Commissioner notes that the Division lacks jurisdiction to
entertain any claims other than the correctness of the Rent
Accordingly, there are no issues to be determined under docket No.
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 a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guideline 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.
As regards the owner's PAR, under Docket No. CJ210121RO, the
Commissioner has considered and rejects the owner's argument that
the tenant caused the service deficiencies specified in the
complaint and that the Division failed to conduct an inspection of
the subject apartment.
The record clearly demonstrates that the Division conducted an
inspection on August 3, 1988, which showed many service
deficiencies and the record is also absent any evidence that the
tenant wilfully caused the service deficiencies specified in the
The Commissioner also finds that the Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record, including the results of
the on-site physical inspection conducted on August 3, 1988, and
that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Administrator
was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had
failed to maintain services.
The Commissioner finds, therefore, that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of the owner's petition is vacated upon issuance of
this order and opinion.
Upon a restoration of services, the owner may separately apply for
a rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, it is
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied,
and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA