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 ADMINISTRAIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.:
Nancy Huang, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PREMISES: Apt. D15
42-20 Kissena Boulevard
PETITIONER Flushing, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review against an order issued by the Rent Administrator reducing
the rent and directing restoration of services based on a finding
of failure to maintain required services.
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 May 26, 1988 by filing a
complaint asserting the owner failed to maintain certain services
in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on August 16, 1988, the owner asserted in
substance that the complained-of conditions were repaired.
Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted on June 13, 1989 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the
existence of these conditions:
(1) The living room ceiling and walls are blistered,
discolored and peeling paint and plaster due to leaks. The
kitchen walls have been covered with sheet rock but not
plastered and painted. The bedroom walls and ceiling are
discolored and peeling paint and plaster. The kitchen
ceiling is incomplete.
(2) The two (2) bedroom window sashes do not open. The left
window lock is missing, and the pane and frames are in
need of painting.
(3) The kitchen floor tiles are worn out.
By an order dated June 29, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and further ordered a reduction of the
In the petition filed on August 3, 1989, the owner contends in
substance that all services are being maintained properly; that the
inspection referred to in the order was conducted without due
process of law; and that she is reserving her right to supplement
In an answer filed on December 15, 1989, the tenant stated in
substance that the conditions continue to exist and that she
incurred expenses of her own due to the disrepair.
The Commissioner notes that as of the writing of this Order and
Opinion, the owner has not exercised her right, as she had
expressed, to supplement the petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion
that the petition should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
required to order a rent reduction, upon application by a tenant,
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain services.
The owner's petition does not establish any basis to modify or
revoke the Administrator's determination based on a June 13, 1989
physical inspection which confirmed the existence of defective
conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The bare allegations that all services are being maintained
properly and that the inspection referred to in the order was
conducted without due process of law are not supported by the
record and without merit. These assertions fail to disturb the
Administrator's order based on the record showing that the owner
was properly informed of the complained-of conditions and the
inspection verifying the allegations in the complaint.
The owner is advised to file a rent restoration application if the
facts so warrant.
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
the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA