ED 110328 RO
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.: ED 110328 RO
SHELLY ESTATES GROUP DISTRICT RENT
NO.: CK 110358 S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
AND REVOKING RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
On April 26, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent
Administrator issued March 23, 1990. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apt. 3L located at 175-20 Wexford
Terrace, Jamaica, N.Y. wherein the Administrator ordered a rent
reduction for failure to maintain required or essential services.
The Administrator has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a Statement
of Complaint of Decrease in Services on November 21, 1988. She
stated that there were leaks in the bedroom and living room
closets. She also stated that the owner was on notice regarding
the condition but did nothing other than to paint and plaster
over the surface of the leaks. The tenant claimed that the
painting and plastering was not done in a workmanlike manner and
that plaster was continually falling from the ceiling and walls.
The tenant also complained that the plastic ends of her venetian
blinds were broken and that the owner refused to replace them.
The tenant annexed to the complaint a letter from the New York
City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The
letter stated that an inspection of the apartment had been
conducted by the Department and a violation was reported for
falling plaster. Specifically, the inspector described a need to
repair defective plastered surfaces and paint the bathroom,
closets, and radiator tops.
The complaint was served on the owner and an opportunity was
given to respond thereto.
The owner filed a response on December 22, 1988. In that
response it stated that all services were being maintained. The
owner stated that the tenant had filed numerous complaints
regarding services deficiencies in her apartment. Specifically,
the owner stated:
1. The peeling paint and plaster was the subject of a
prior rent reduction (Docket No. AG 110050 S)
which was under appeal with the Division (Docket
No. BF110078 RO)
2. The worn blinds were the subject of the same rent
reduction in the order mentioned above
3. The complaint of unworkmanlike painting was one
constantly lodged by the tenant. The owner had
made every effort to attempt to accommodate the
tenant, to no avail.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the
apartment. The inspections were conducted on January 31 and
February 23, 1990 and revealed the following:
1. Small flakes of paint missing from lower
living room closet (left side)
The following services were found to have been maintained:
1. No evidence of water leaks in bedroom and
living room closets
2. No evidence of peeling paint and plaster in
bedroom and living room
3. No evidence of leaks coming through tiles of
shower into bedroom closet.
On March 23, 1990 the Administrator issued the order here under
review and granted a rent reduction effective March 23, 1990.
On appeal the owner, through counsel, makes three arguments
in seeking reversal of the Administrator's order:
1. The Administrator failed to give the owner notice
of the inspection and also failed to serve the
owner with a copy of the inspector's report
2. In light of the "enormous level" of prior pro-
ceedings involving this tenant, the owner requests
a hearing to determine the issues raised in the
3. The minor nature of the services deficiency did
not warrant a rent reduction.
The tenant filed a response to the petition on June 16, 1990
wherein she stated, in substance, that the service had not been
restored and, therefore, that the order here under review should
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be
granted and the order here under review revoked.
Addressing the owner's arguments in the order presented, the
Commissioner has consistently held that due process does not
require the owner to be served with a notice of the inspection
nor a copy of the inspector's report. The service of the
complaint puts the owner on notice of the conditions and the need
for repair thereof. Since, as the owner itself admits, there has
been a lengthy history of services complaints involving this
tenant, it cannot now claim lack of notice.
Petitioner requests a hearing due to the numerous
proceedings which have been filed by this tenant before the
Division. The granting of a hearing is discretionary and the
Commissioner finds that this proceeding does not present facts
sufficient to warrant the granting of such relief. The request
for hearing is denied.
The Commissioner finds, however, that a rent reduction is
not warranted based on the particular facts of this case. The
tenant complained about leaks in the closets and the inspector
specifically reported no evidence of leaks in these closets
indicating that the conditions complained of had been repaired.
The existence of small fakes of paint in one small portion of an
area that is not generally visible does not constitute a failure
to maintain services. (Accord ARL 08762-U) Accordingly, it was
error for the Administrator to issue the order here under review.
The petition is granted and that order is revoked.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
granted, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
Acting Deputy Commissioner