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.:
MATILDA & MIKLOS KISS, DOCKET NO.:
507 W. 168th Street
PETITIONERS Apt. 3-C, New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owners filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued concerning the housing accommodations
relating to the above described docket number.
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 this proceeding on October 11, 1988 by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to main-
tain certain services in the subject apartment.
In their answer, the owners on November 25, 1988 asserted that
all required repairs would be completed in thirty days.
On October 18, 1989 an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a D.H.C.R. inspector who confirmed the existence of
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of these services and
further ordered, a reduction of the stabilization rent.
In their petition for administrative review, the owners request
reversal of the Rent Administrator's order based on a stipulation
of settlement, so ordered, entered into on February 2, 1989. A
copy of the stipulation is attached to the owner's petition.
In answer to the owner's petition the tenant states that the
service deficiencies cited in the Rent Administrator's order
still exist and that the owners have made no effort to effec-
The Commissioner notes that the Stipulation of Settlement at-
tached to the owner's petition is dated February 2, 1989 and
that this document was not submitted to the Rent Administrator
during the original proceeding even though it was in the owners'
possession. The owners have not offered any explanation for
their failure to do so. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 2529.6
of the Rent Stabilization Code, this document may not be con-
sidered now when offered for the first time on administrative
The Commissioner further notes that the stipulation contained the
owner's promise to repair "holes under the sink, replace fuse box
cover, and repair bedroom electrical socket," and that none of
these items are relevant to the tenant's complaints in the in-
stant case. The owners have offered no evidence suggesting that
they have addressed any of the tenant's service complaints. The
Commissioner also notes that the stipulation is dated February 2,
1989, eight months's prior to the DHCR inspection and nine months
prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code;
A tenant may apply to the DHCR for a reduc-
tion of the legal regulated rent to the
level in effect prior to the most recent
guidelines adjustment and the DHCR shall so
reduce the rent for the period for which it
is found that the own r has failed to main-
tain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The Commissioner finds that the Rent Administrator properly based
his determination on the entire record; including the results of
the on - site physical inspection conducted on October 18, 1989
and pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the Rent Adminis-
trator was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the
owner had failed to maintain services.
This Order and Opinion is issued without prejudice to the owner's
rights as they may pertain to an application to the Division for
a restoration of rent based upon the restoration of services.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, 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
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner