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.:
HANDLER & COMPANY,
PETITIONER DOCKET NO.:
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 29, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
February 27, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 135 East 50th Street, Apartment 9-B,
New York, New York, wherein the Administrator determined that the
owner had failed to maintain certain services and ordered a
reduction of rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing of a complaint of
reduction in services by the tenant. A copy of the tenant's
complaint was served on the owner on May 23, 1988. Thereafter, on
February 1, 1989, an inspection of the apartment confirmed one or
more of the complained of conditions resulting in the issuance of
the order herein appealed.
In the PAR, the owner contends that the order was an abuse of the
Administrator's discretion, that a new managing agent was appointed
in October, 1988, but all notices of the Administrator were incor-
rectly directed to the premises address, that all conditions in the
apartment were corrected except for the hot and cold water mixing
valve because the proper party was not notified of the complaint,
and that the effective date of the rent reduction should have been
the first rent payment date after inspection.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
A review of the Division's records does not indicate, and the owner
does not allege, that a notice of change in identity had been
filed. The address used by the Administrator in the processing of
this complaint was the address given by the owner in the 1988
registration statement which was the last statement filed with this
Division before issuance of the Administrator's order.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 2527.3 of the Rent Stabilization
Code the owner was correctly notified of the tenant's complaint.
The Commissioner rejects the owner's contention that the effective
date of the rent reduction cannot precede the date of the Divi-
An order reducing the rent is effective on the first day of the
month following service on the owner of the tenant's complaint.
Here, the tenant's complaint was served on the owner on May 23,
1988. Thus the effective date of the rent reduction was correctly
determined by the Administrator to be June 1, 1988.
The petitioner's other contentions have been reviewed and are 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, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA