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.:
MARIN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
PETITIONER CA 430104-B
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 21, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed an Admin-
istrative Appeal against an order issued on June 12, 1989, by the
Rent Administrator, 92-31 Union Hall, Jamaica, New York, concerning
the housing accommodations known as 107-109 West 82nd Street,
New York, New York, various apartments.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rents of various rent stabilized and rent controlled apartments
in the subject building.
The Rent Administrator's order, appealed herein, determined that
the rent for rent stabilized apartments should be reduced to the
level in effect prior to the last rent guideline increase which
commenced before the effective date of the order based upon a
diminution of services and further determined that the maximum
legal rent for rent controlled apartments should be reduced by
$13.00 per month based upon a diminution of services. The Rent
Administrator's order was based upon an inspection held on April 7,
Although the inspection report disclosed that twenty (20) service
items had been either corrected or were in progress by the owner,
the report showed that the following service deficiencies existed
at the time of the inspection:
1. The cellar door is partially installed.
2. The parapet wall requires pointing.
3. The fire escape requires painting.
4. Bulkhead door is rusted.
5. Cellar toilet room requires fixture replacement.
On appeal, the petitioner-owner averred that the inspector erred by
concluding that the cellar door was partially installed; that there
was no reduction in toilet service to the tenants because the
toilet space is a new commercial space currently under construction
with approved city plans and that the other specified service de-
ficiencies were of a de minimis nature not requiring a reduction in
One rent stabilized tenant answered the petition and said that
although all repairs have been completed, they were not done when
the complaint was filed or the inspection took place.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be granted in part.
A review of the complaint filed by the tenants on January 22, 1988
reveals that the tenants did not request a rent reduction.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) the Division is required to order a
rent reduction based on a finding of failure to maintain services
only when the tenant applies for a rent reduction. It was, there-
fore, error to order a rent reduction for rent stabilized tenants
of this proceeding and that portion of the Administrator's order
must be revoked. Despite the revocation of the rent reduction for
stabilized tenants, the owner remains obligated to restore services
and risks additional penalties for failing to comply.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations provides that a finding that an owner has failed
to maintain services may result in an order of decrease in maximum
rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the Rent Admin-
istrator. No request for a rent reduction is required.
Nearly sixteen months had elapsed from the time a copy of the
tenants' complaint was mailed to the owner to the time the Rent
Administrator's orders were issued, on June 12, 1989.
A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that
the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted
on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at
the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any time prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner has considered and rejects the owner's claim on
appeal that most of the defective conditions found were of a de
minimis nature that do not warrant a rent reduction. In accordance
with the authority provided by Section 2202.16, the Administrator
ordered an appropriate rent reduction to reflect the decreased
rental value of the subject housing accommodations because of the
defective conditions cited in the inspection report. Moreover, the
tenants are entitled to all services provided on the base date or
The Commissioner notes that with regard to the issues raised con-
cerning the cellar toilet room fixtures, the DHCR mailed the
tenants a Notice of Opportunity to Present Further Information and
Evidence, on September 25, 1992, but no answer was submitted. In
view of the tenants' failure to rebut the owner's allegation that
the cellar toilet is not a facility available for tenant use, that
item should be deleted from the Administrator's order.
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 April 7, 1989 and that
pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations
the Administrator was authorized to reduce the rents of the rent
controlled tenants upon determining that the owner had failed to
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabili-
zation Law and Code, and the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City, it is,
ORDERED, that this administrative appeal be, and the same hereby
is, granted in part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the
same hereby is, modified, to revoke the rent reduction for rent
stabilized tenants and to revoke the $2.00 per month rent reduction
for the cellar toilet room fixtures for rent controlled tenants as
provided hereinabove. The order of the Rent Administrator is
hereby affirmed in all other respects. Any arrears owed by the
tenants as a result of this determination may be paid off in 24
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner