CJ210167RT, CJ210121RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433

          APPEALS OF                                   DOCKET NOS.:
               Carol Dudley, Samuel Heyman,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:


          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 

          CJ210167RT, CJ210121RO

          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 
          been granted.

          The Commissioner notes that the Division lacks jurisdiction to 
          entertain any claims other than the correctness of the Rent 
          Administrator's determination.

          CJ210167RT, CJ210121RO

          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 
          inspection report.

          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, 

          CJ210167RT, CJ210121RO



                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             Deputy Commissioner  

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name