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.:
SAUL SHENKER, DOCKET NO.:
650 West 171st St.
PETITIONER New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART AND MODIFYING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on January 20, 1989, concerning the
housing accommodations relating to the above-described docket
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 September 14, 1988, by
filing a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain
certain services in the subject apartment.
On November 28, 1988, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
staff member who confirmed the existence of defective conditions.
On December 12, 1988, a second inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
additional defective conditions.
By an order dated January 20, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction based on the
physical inspections and the owner's failure to submit an answer to
the tenant's complaint.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done and that he did, in fact, submit an answer to the tenant's
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant who answered,
stating that he objected to the statements made in the owner's
After a careful review of the evidence in the record, the Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that the petition should be granted in
part and the order here under review should be affirmed as modified
A careful review of the record reveals that the owner did, in fact,
submit an answer to the tenant's complaint. This answer, in which
the owner asserted in substance that the necessary repairs were
made, was filed by the owner and received by the Agency on November
2, 1988. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the Administra-
tor's order issued on January 20, 1989, is in error with respect to
its finding that the owner failed to file an answer and must be
modified accordingly to reflect the fact that the owner did submit
an answer to the tenant's complaint.
The balance of the Administrator's order is affirmed. The Commis-
sioner notes that the owner's answer was filed prior to either of
the two DHCR inspections. The Administrator properly relied on the
findings of the two physical inspections, which are controlling
notwithstanding the owner's assertions in his answer.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
authorized to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
November 28, 1988 and December 12, 1988 inspections which confirmed
the existence of defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The rent will be restored only when an owner's application to
restore the rent is filed and granted. The owner is advised to
file such an application if the facts so warrant.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
Order and Opinion.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza-
tion Law and Code, and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed as modified herein.
LULA M. ANDERSON