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.: DF210301RT
DOCKET NO.: DA210028OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenant filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on May 31, 1989, concerning the housing
accommodations known as 1177 East 98th Street, Apartment 3J,
Brooklyn, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the
owner's application to restore rent previously reduced per 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 owner commenced this proceeding by filing a rent restoration
application asserting that the conditions which provided the bases
for the rent reduction had been corrected. With the application
the owner submitted an undated handwritten statement the owner
states was signed by the tenant, to the effect that all repairs to
the apartment had been completed. However, the tenant's answer
disputed the owner's claim that all conditions had been corrected.
The tenant also makes a bare suggestion that any release the tenant
provided the owner was "by duress".
An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on March 15,
1989 at the request of the Tenant Services Unit. The inspector
reported that the walls and ceilings of the foyer and two bedrooms
had been plastered and painted, that the apartment entrance door
and lock, and the bedroom wall outlets had been repaired, and that
the bell buzzer system was working.
A notice was sent to the owner advising that the inspector had also
found that the radiator valves in the two bedrooms needed to be
replaced. The owner responded that new radiator valves had been
On May 31, 1989, the Rent Administrator issued an order restoring
the rent previously reduced (per BG210440S) based on a finding that
the owner had corrected the conditions that had given rise to the
The tenant filed a petition for administrative review challenging
the determination, reiterating that various conditions had not been
corrected. In support, the tenant submits the report of an
inspection conducted on March 28, 1989, at the request of the
Enforcement Bureau in connection with then pending harassment
proceedings. In pertinent part, the inspection report noted that
while the apartment had been painted, it could not be ascertained
if lead paint had been removed, that the master bedroom ceiling and
wall were stained due to seepage, that the apartment door lock
needed adjustment and realignment, that the door had various
deficiencies, and that the intercom did not operate properly in
that it was barely audible.
The owner's answer points to the tenant's written "statement" that
all violations were removed, and asserts that the owner is willing
"to go into [tenant's] apartment again to determine if there is a
need for further repairs."
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
The Tenant Services Unit and the Enforcement Bureau inspections
were conducted within two weeks of each other. The record below
detailed evidence of repairs with regard to the master bedroom
ceiling and walls, and to the apartment entrance door and lock.
However, the Enforcement inspection report indicated evidence of
water seepage in the bedroom and door defects.
Notwithstanding the above, the Rent Administrator processed the
rent restoration application properly in accordance with the normal
procedures. Also, it cannot be concluded from the record presented
that the conditions, albeit related, were identical. Moreover, it
is unlikely that further processing five years after the fact would
resolve these years old issues.
It is also noted that Division records also indicate that this rent
stabilized tenant has had the benefit of a rent reduction in other
decreased services proceedings during a substantial portion of the
interim and that as stabilized tenant, he may not benefit from
multiple stabilization rent reductions where two or more rent
reduction orders overlap. Additionally, the harassment proceedings
under 19168HL were closed, without a finding of harassment.
Concerning the lead paint condition alleged, the Commissioner notes
that the condition does not relate back to the conditions cited as
the basis for the rent reduction and therefore should not be
considered in the owner's application for rent restoration. It is
further noted that the Services Unit of the DHCR SCORE Bureau is
not able to ascertain if lead paint conditions exist in the first
instance, or whether they are thereafter eliminated. The City
Health Department and the City Department of Housing Preservation
and Development (HPD) have the staff with the required expertise
and facilities to ascertain the same.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to
file a complaint for current services decreases, as the facts may
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied and
that the Rent Administrator's rent restoration order be affirmed,
in accordance with the above.
LULA M. ANDERSON