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.: CL120181RO
RICHARD ALBERT DOCKET NO.: BL120750S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 29, 1988, the above-named petitioner-owner filed
a petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
December 12, 1988, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 93-49 222 Street, Apt. 1Y, Queens
Village, New York wherein the Administrator directed a restoration
of services and ordered a reduction of the maximum legal rent.
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 of several
complaints of decrease in services. An inspection conducted by a
Division employee confirmed the existence of some of the complained
of conditions, resulting in the December 12, 1988 order.
In the PAR, the owner contends that the Administrator's
finding of unworkmanlike repairs in the bathroom floor grouting and
ceiling tile were not items which were raised in the tenant's
complaint. The owner further contends that upon receipt of the
tenant's seven complaints, repairs were promptly scheduled; that
the owner has had a continuing problem in gaining access to the
tenant's apartment; that the owner is performing all required
maintenance including replacing cement foundations and lolly
columns; that the tenants are filing multiple meritless complaints;
and that federal law requires that the owner be given a hearing
before penalties can be imposed in this case.
In response to the owner's PAR the tenant stated that the
order should be affirmed based on the inspector's findings.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
The owner states in his PAR that he was served with copies of
the tenant's complaints but none of these complaints dealt with
the shower tiles. The owner's answer to these complaints, however,
states that the tenant had complained about the condition of the
shower and that the shower pan was replaced and the interior of the
shower was rebuilt. The Commissioner finds that notwithstanding
the owner's assertion of repairs, the inspection found said repairs
to have been done in an unworkmanlike manner.
The Commissioner finds that although the owner alleges that
upon receipt of the tenant's complaints repairs were promptly
scheduled, he has offered no evidence to substantiate this before
the Administrator. In addition, there is no requirement in
applicable law which requires that a hearing be conducted before an
order of this type can be issued. Lastly, the owner has presented
no evidence in support of his contention that there has been a
continuing problem of gaining access to this tenant's apartment.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the City Rent Law and the Rent
and Eviction Regulations, it is,
ORDERED, that this Administrative Review petition be, and the
same hereby is, denied and that the Rent Administrator's order be,
and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Joseph A. D'Agosta