STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
          -----------------------------------X 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.:DI110028RO     
                                                        
          A.B.R. Management, Inc.,                 RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:DE110486S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      82-46 Langdale
                                                      Apt. 145A
                                                      New Hyde Park, NY    
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
             
               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

            The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
            review of an order issued on July 31, 1989 concerning the housing 
            accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.  

            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 April 4, 1989 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject apartment.

            On June 3, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the complaint to the owner, 
            advising  that failure to file an answer within twenty (20) days 
            shall be considered a default and may result in a determination 
            based on the record as presently before DHCR.

            In a letter filed on June 16, 1989, the owner denied the allegations 
            and requested an extension of time to prepare an answer to the 
            tenant's complaint.

            Thereafter on July 24, 1989, a physical inspection of the subject 
            apartment was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the 
            existence of defective conditions.

            By an order dated July 31, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it requested 
            an extension of time to address the complaint because of one-hundred 
            thirty (130) individual complaints filed at the same time; that 
            thirty (30) days after its first extension request, it contacted the 
            Administrator by phone requesting another extension, which was 
            allegedly granted; that a follow-up letter dated July 13, 1989 was 
            mailed to DHCR to confirm the alleged granting of the extension; and 
            that the order was issued without consideration of this alleged  
            DI110028RO







            extension to file an answer, without apprising the owner of the 
            inspection findings and without allowing the owner opportunity to 
            correct the conditions.

            In answer, the tenant stated in substance that it would be unfair to 
            tenants if DHCR is mandated to give extension of time to file an 
            answer to every request for additional time; that the owner was not  
            inundated by one-hundred thirty (130) numerous complaints as 
            alleged, but only by no less than seventy (70) complaints; that  the 
            owner had filed affidavits of completed repairs anyway, making 
            unnecessary these extensions of time to address the complaint; and 
            that those affidavits are false as proven by the inspection 
            findings.

            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 the July 24, 1989 
            inspection which confirmed the existence of defective conditions, 
            warranting a rent reduction. 

            DHCR is not required to respond in writing to an extension request 
            and in the absence of a written response, a party may not assume 
            that such a request is granted. (See DL410345RO; DK410279RO; and 
            GA110112RO).

            The defense that the owner has the right to an inspection report is 
            without merit. The Commissioner notes that the tenant's complaint is 
            sufficient notice to the owner; that the owner chose not to 
            diligently contest the tenant's allegations; that the inspection 
            report merely confirmed some allegations in complaint; and that 
            accordingly, the owner was not denied due process. (See FH410081RO; 
            Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 538 NYS 2d 49, 147 AD 2d 642).

            The status of the owner's rent restoration applications is as 
            follows: DH110213OR denied on April 23, 1990 and EC110004OR granted 
            on October 24, 1990.

            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, affirmed.



            ISSUED:

                                                                          
                                                  LULA M. ANDERSON
                                                  Deputy Commissioner

    

TenantNet Home | TenantNet Forum | New York Tenant Information
DHCR Information | DHCR Decisions | Housing Court Decisions | New York Rent Laws
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

Subscribe to our Mailing List!
Your Email      Full Name