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.:
MRS REALTY COMPANY, DOCKET NO.:
621 West 172nd Street
PETITIONER Apt. 55, New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on June 22, 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 June 3, 1988, by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner asserted in substance that repairs were done.
On June 7, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was con-
ducted by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) staff
member who confirmed the existence of the following defective
1. the right front burner in the stove is defective;
2. evidence of roach and mice infestation in the kitchen;
3. the foyer light fixture is detached from the ceiling;
4. bathroom and kitchen ceramic tiles are in need of
5. the basin in the bathroom is loose and not secured to
By an order dated June 22, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done and furthermore, that the tenant was already granted a $900.00
rent abatement in a non-payment proceeding which was before the
Housing Court and that they were therefore being penalized twice
for the same offense.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
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
June 7, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of defective
conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The Commissioner notes that although the owner submitted copies of
work orders with this petition, each of the submitted work orders
predates the DHCR physical inspection by at least eight months and
therefore do not in any way refute the findings of the inspection.
In any event, all of these work orders were submitted for the first
time with this petition and are therefore beyond the scope of
review, which is limited to the issues and evidence which had
originally been before the Administrator.
The Commissioner further notes that it is true that if a rent
reduction order issued by DHCR and a court ordered rent abatement
reduce a tenant's rent for the same period of time for identical
conditions, the tenant may not collect twice.
However, in the copy of the stipulation entered into in Housing
Court on January 25, 1989 (Index No. 88194/88), which was submitted
with this petition, there is no reference made as to what
conditions or what time period are covered by the rent abatement.
In another stipulation under the same docket number, dated August
8, 1988, which the owner also submitted with this petition, the
owner agreed to inspect and repair, if necessary, three specified
conditions in the subject apartment. Only one of these items
listed in the court stipulation, the defective kitchen stove, is
also covered by the Administrator's rent reduction order. There-
fore, of the five specified conditions which were the basis for the
DHCR rent reduction order, only one, the stove, is mentioned in the
court papers submitted by the owner.
The Commissioner therefore finds that the evidence in the record
does not support the owner's contention that the rent reduction
order and the court abatement cover the same conditions for the
same period of time. Therefore, the tenant is not benefiting twice
from the same conditions. The Commissioner also notes for the
record that the $900.00 amount specified by the owner in the
petition includes $150.00 in costs so that the true amount of the
rent abatement awarded to the tenant, as set forth in the court
stipulation, is actually only $750.00.
Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's determina-
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 Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
LULA M. ANDERSON