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.:
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING, IN PART, PETITION
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely Petition for Administrative
Review (PAR) of an order issued on June 29, 1989, concerning the
housing accommodations known as 2260 Olinville Avenue, Apartment
1-A, Bronx, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined the
tenant's complaint of decreased services.
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 petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a complaint on May
11, 1989, asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment. The complaint was mailed to the
owner on May 23, 1989.
An inspection of the subject apartment was conducted on June 12,
1989, by a Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR)
inspector, who reported that the bathroom ceiling required
painting, that the kitchen stove pilot light needed to be replaced,
that a bedroom wall was water damaged and had a defective
electrical outlet, and that the mailbox needed to be serviced.
Other conditions were not substantiated or were found to have been
In an answer, dated June 7, 1989, postmarked stamped June 12, 1989,
and received on June 14, 1989, the owner denied certain of the
allegations set forth in the complaint. The owner also asserted
that he had contracted to have the apartment plastered and painted.
The Rent Administrator directed restoration of the services
decreases found on inspection and ordered a reduction of the
stabilization rent, without consideration of the owner's answer.
In this petition for administrative review the owner, in substance,
argues that he was denied due process, in that the inspection upon
which the order is based occurred prior to the DHCR receipt of the
owner's answer and prior to the expiration of the twenty-day period
the owner was permitted to respond to the tenant's allegations.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted in part, as more fully set forth
The inspection took place exactly twenty days from the date of
service of the complaint on the owner. Although the owner timely
answered below that he had contracted to have the apartment painted
and plastered, the answer was received after the inspection. The
Rent Administrator completed processing without giving any
consideration to the owner's assertion in the answer that he was
not ignoring his obligations but was in the process of plastering
and painting. Consequently, this condition must be revoked as a
basis for the rent reduction.
However, the record does not establish any other basis for
modifying or revoking the Rent Administrator's order which
determined that the owner was not maintaining other required
services. In the answer, the owner had denied that the stove,
mailbox and electrical outlets were defective, and did not indicate
that any corrective action would be undertaken concerning these
items. The Rent Administrator's order granting a rent reduction
for these defects was proper and should be affirmed.
Division records also reveal that the Rent Administrator issued an
order on January 24, 1990, that granted the owner's rent
restoration application under Docket No. DG610165OR.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions Rent Stabilization Law
and Code, 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, modified to revoke bathroom ceiling not painted and
second bedroom water damaged wall as predicates for the rent
reduction. In all other respects the Rent Administrator's order is