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.: CK110101RO
DOCKET NO.: BL110749S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On November 21, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review of an order issued on November
9, 1988 by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing
accommodation known as 93-49 222 Street, Apt. 1U, Queens Village,
New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the owner had
failed to maintain certain services, reduced the rent, and directed
the owner to restore the services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issue raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing by the tenant of
various complaints of a decrease in services alleging damaged floor
near bedroom radiator and failure to paint exterior of window
frames in accordance with the Housing Maintenance Code.
An inspection conducted by a DHCR staff inspector on September 29,
1988 confirmed that the hardwood floor by the bedroom radiator was
waterstained. The inspection also disclosed that the top sashes of
the windows throughout the apartment are painted shut.
Based on this inspection the Administrator issued the order of
November 9, 1988 here under review.
In the PAR, the owner states that the floor condition has already
been the subject of a rent reduction order, that the condition was
corrected and an order restoring the rent was issued on October 5,
In addition, the owner contends that the conditions are too minor
to warrant a rent reduction, that the Agency did not follow
established Federal procedures regarding a hearing and due process,
that this case was brought by a tenant representative in violation
of a court stipulation, and that the tenants have harassed the
owner in every aspect of building management and have filed
duplicate complaints for rent reductions.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be granted and the Administrator's order
A review of the Division's files indicates that on June 23, 1986
the Administrator reduced the rent for the condition described in
the order as "Leaking bedroom radiator caused the floor board to be
rotted." Thereafter, an inspection conducted on March 23, 1987 by
the Division determined that the leaking bedroom radiator had been
repaired and an order restoring the rent was issued on October 5,
1987, with the effective date of December 1, 1986. The order
contained the direction that the owner repair the water stained
floor, which condition it appears was insufficient to justify
continuing the rent reduction.
The portion of the tenant's complaint regarding the damaged floor
was dated April 23, 1987 which was one month after the inspection
and approximately six months prior to the order which restored the
rent. In the complaint the tenant makes no mention that the leak
had recurred, and the record indicates that the condition described
in the complaint is the same one previously dealt with by this
The Commissioner therefore finds that it was error for the
Administrator to reduce the rent for the very same condition that
was previously deemed insufficient to justify continuing a rent
reduction and on this basis the portion of the order relating to
this condition is revoked.
The Commissioner notes that the finding in the Administrator's
order that upper window sashes are painted shut was not mentioned
in the tenant's complaint which alleged that the exterior of her
windows had not been painted in over five years and that such
violation of the Housing Maintenance Code justifies a rent
reduction. The Commissioner finds that the condition found is not
one which the tenant complained of and that the owner was not
served with or otherwise on notice of this condition. Therefore,
the portion of the order relating to this condition is revoked.
The petitioner's other contentions have been examined and found to
be without merit.
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, granted,
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
revoked in accordance with this order and opinion.
The tenant may pay any arrears in rent arising as a result of this
order and opinion in equal monthly installments over a 24 month
LULA M. ANDERSON