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.:DI110059RO     
                                                        
          C.L. Realty Co. c/o                      RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
          Kucker, Kraus and Bruh,                  DOCKET NO.:DE110419S      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      81-69 Langdale Street
                                                      Apt. 203A
                                                      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 August 3, 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 in May 1989 by filing a 
            complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various 
            services in the subject apartment.

            On June 2, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the tenant's complaint to the 
            owner, advising that "(f)ailure to file an answer within twenty (20) 
            days from the date appearing on this notice shall be considered a 
            default and may result in a determination based on the record as 
            presently before the agency."

            Thereafter, a physical inspection of the subject apartment was 
            conducted on June 26, 1989 by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the 
            existence of these defective conditions:

                 (1) The freezer was defective with 37 degrees Fahrenheit at the  
                     time of inspection.
                 (2) The storage door in the oven was defective.
                 (3) Tiles were missing around the window area in the bathroom.
                 (4) The bathtub tiles needed grouting; there was also a cracked  
                     floor under the bathroom sink.
                 (5) There was falling plaster and a cracked ceiling in the     
                     bathroom.
                 (6) The kitchen counter top was in need of repairs.
                 (7) There were cracks in the ceiling and walls in the bedroom.
                 (8) There was roach infestation.
                 (9) The entrance door frame needed painting.
                 (10) There are leaks from the tenant's terrace to the mail box.

            By an order dated August 3, 1989, the Administrator directed the 
            DI110059RO







            restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.

            In this petition, the owner contends that due to the unusual amount 
            of individual complaints filed, the petitioner's attorney on July 
            13, 1989  requested  an extension by phone and in writing. The owner 
            submitted copies of a certified mailing with return receipt of that 
            June 13, 1989 letter denying any reduction of services, requesting  
            to be notified of an inspection and requesting "an extension of time 
            to prepare a more thorough response to the tenant's complaint". The 
            owner alleges that the Administrator's failure to address the 
            request for an extension of time to file an answer to the complaint, 
            and the request for notice of an inspection, violated due process.  

            In answer, the tenant asserts in substance that the owner knew of 
            these conditions before the filing of the complaints in a meeting 
            with the tenants' association; that the owner had sufficient time to 
            rectify the situation; and that the owner stated that all repairs 
            had been made when in fact it has not made a diligent attempt to 
            resolve the complaint.

            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 required 
            services. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to 
            modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the June 
            26, 1989 inspection which confirmed the existence of various 
            defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction. 

            In the instant case, the owner was properly served with the 
            complaint and the owner in fact answered the complaint. The owner 
            had sufficient notice of the complained of conditions. Due process 
            does not require that an owner should be given notice of the 
            inspection or inspection results, and the courts have upheld this 
            procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR, 538 NYS 2d 49, 147 
            AD 2d 642, February 21, 1989).

            As to the issue of extending the time to file an answer, any request 
            for same which is not consented to in writing by DHCR is denied, and  
            no written response by DHCR is required (GA110112RO; DL410345RO).

            The Commissioner notes that the owner's rent restoration application 
            (DH110229OR) was denied on April 25, 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