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.: CJ420067RT
DOCKET NO.: BH402401S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 20, 1988, the above-named petitioner-tenant filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
September 16, 1988, by the rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 980 Second Avenue, New York, N.Y.,
Apt. 2-B, 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 appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On August 8, 1987, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to maintain services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that many of
the service deficiencies specified in the complaint have already
been corrected and those that have not will be corrected in the
A DHCR inspection conducted on June 16, 1988, revealed broken
plaster in the wall by the two front windows and plaster broken on
the bathtub wall by the faucet. The inspector found that all other
repairs specified in the complaint had been corrected.
On appeal, the petitioner-tenant asserted, in pertinent part, that
all repairs were not corrected and that those that were corrected
were done in an unworkmanlike manner. The petitioner also
requested a copy of the DHCR inspection report.
The petition was served on the owner on November 30, 1988 and on
December 13, 1988, the owner filed an answer to the petition
stating that the work has been done.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed
to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease
in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the
Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because
of the decrease in services.
Concerning the petitioner-tenant's argument that the Administrator
failed to give her the inspection results, the Commissioner finds
that due process does not require that the tenant be sent copies of
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 16, 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 states that the owner failed to correct
broken plaster on the wall near two front windows; that there was
broken plaster on the bathroom wall located near the bathtub
faucets and that the shower head was not properly secured.
The inspection held on June 16, 1988, corroborated the owner's
consistent assertion that several repairs were made in a
workmanlike manner and that there were no additional service
deficiencies other than those specified in the Rent Administrator's
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the tenant has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
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 June 16, 1988, pursuant to
Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations, and that the
Rent Administrator properly determined that a rent reduction of
$7.00 per month reflecting the reduced rental value of the
accommodation because of the decreased services was warranted.
Division records reveal that a partial grant of the owner's
application for rent restoration was granted in the amount of $5.00
per month, under Docket No. EB420029OR, and that upon a full
restoration of services, the owner may reapply for the remaining
$2.00 per month rent.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations, 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