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.:
3311 REALTY ASSOCIATES,
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named petitioner-owner filed a timely petition for
administrative review (PAR) of an order issued concerning the
housing accommodations known as 3311 Shore Parkway, Apartment 5-E,
Brooklyn, New York.
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 petition.
The tenant commenced the proceeding below by filing a complaint on
November 6, 1987, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
In an answer, the owner denied the allegations set forth in the
complaint or otherwise asserted that all required repairs had been
or will be completed.
Thereafter, inspections of the subject apartment were conducted by
the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspectors on
June 23, 1988 and August 15, 1988, who confirmed the existence of
the following defective conditions:
1. Evidence of roach infestation in apartment.
2. Windows in apartment rattle, need putty.
3. Bathtub porcelain scratched and small area is
4. Evidence of small amount of enamel missing
from kitchen sink.
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In its petition for administrative review, the owner argues, in
substance, that the items in the order are de minimis in nature and
do not warrant a rent reduction. They further state that they have
switched to another exterminating company, signed a contract to
replace all windows in the apartment, and feel that scratched
porcelain and missing enamel do not affect the tenant's use of the
bathtub or kitchen sink, and therefore the order should be reversed
in its entirety.
The DHCR served a copy of the petition on the tenant on August 1,
1990. The tenant replied that the petition should be denied
because some of the conditions continue to exist and if they are de
minimis in nature they should require a de minimis response to
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code DHCR is
required to order the rent reduction, upon application by the
tenant, where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain
required services. The owner's petition does not establish any
basis for modifying or revoking the Administrator's order which
determined that the owner was not maintaining required services
based on a physical inspection confirming the existence of
defective conditions in the subject apartment for which a rent
reduction is warranted.
The owner's rent restoration application has been filed and is
pending before the Administrator.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA