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.:DI410222RO
(Refile of DH410003RO)
Gertrude Bauer c/o RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
Bee & Bee Mgmt., DOCKET NO.:DD510441S
25 Post Avenue
PETITIONER New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND REMANDING PROCEEDING TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER
The above-named owner refiled and perfected a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on July 18, 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 27, 1989 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer dated May 17, 1989 (filed May 25, 1989), the owner
denied some of the allegations in the complaint and otherwise
asserted that all repairs were done. The owner enclosed copies of
two work orders, with alleged tenant's signatures acknowledging
completion of repairs on May 19 and 23, 1989 respectively, and
requesting cancellation of her complaint.
On May 26, 1989, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of the
following various conditions:
(1) Panelling in the hall was installed in an unworkmanlike
(2) The apartment was peeling paint and plaster throughout; the
walls were uneven.
(3) The window guards were installed in an unworkmanlike
(4) The oven thermostat was defective.
(5) There was vermin infestation.
(6) The kitchen electrical outlet was inoperative.
(7) A bathroom door stop was required.
Based on the processor's notes, the Administrator as late as July
10, 1989 was unaware of the owner's answer. There is no indication
in the record that the Administrator attempted to verify the
tenant's signatures in the pertinent papers.
By an order dated July 18, 1989, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done; that the tenant acknowledged completion of repairs on May 19
and 23, 1989, i.e. before the inspection and the order's issuance.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant. The record does
not indicate that the tenant answered the petition.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted in part, as more fully set forth
A search of the record shows that the tenant filed various
statements indicating withdrawal of the complaint not only in the
proceeding below but even subsequent to issuance of the
Administrator's order, namely on May 23, 1989, December 19, 1990,
March 20, 1991 and July 1, 1991.
Based on the tenant's signed statements on May 19 and 23, 1989, the
owner could reasonably assume that no further action was required
and that the proceeding before DHCR would be terminated without a
rent reduction. Due process requires that the tenant's statement,if
submitted by the owner, be served on the tenant and, if challenged,
that the owner be advised that the complaint was not being
In the instant case, the physical inspection revealed that contrary
to the owner's allegations and the statements allegedly signed by
the tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not
possibly have been done properly on May 19 and 23, 1989 if a
subsequent physical inspection disclosed various defective
The Commissioner notes that the owner filed the following rent
restoration applications: EE510092OR denied on February 27, 1991,
FD510101OR denied on October 24, 1991, and FK510095OR denied on
January 25, 1994.
A rent reduction for the various conditions found by inspection is
required pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code.
But because of the failure to forward to the tenant the signature
for verification, this proceeding must be remanded to the
Administrator for further processing.
This proceeding is remanded to the Administrator for purposes of
verifying the tenant's signatures on the work orders and tenant's
"withdrawal" submitted with the owner's answer filed May 25, 1989.
The Commissioner is of the further opinion that a prospective stay
of the rent reduction is warranted in light of the foregoing; the
stay of the retroactive refund was automatic upon filing of the
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, granted in
ALSO ORDERED, that this proceeding be, and the same hereby, is
remanded to the Administrator to verify the tenant's signatures on
the work orders and "withdrawal" submitted as part of the owner's
answer filed May 25, 1989; and
FURTHER ORDERED, that a prospective stay of the rent reduction is
warranted, effective the first day of the month following the
issuance date of this Order and Opinion, in accordance with the
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA