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.:DI110028RO
A.B.R. Management, Inc., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
New Hyde Park, NY
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
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
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
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
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.
LULA M. ANDERSON