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.: ED620245RO
PETER KREATSOULAS RENT
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 23, 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 6B located at 3214 Kingsbridge Ave.,
Bronx, N.Y. The Administrator ordered a rent reduction for failure
to maintain required services.
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully
considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this
The tenant commenced this proceeding on February 15, 1989 by
filing a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services and
alleged that the owner had refused to paint the apartment, that the
toilet is defective and that there is low water pressure in the
The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded
an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on March 28,
1989 and stated that all repairs had been made and that the
apartment was painted before the complaint was filed. The owner
attached an invoice for the alleged painting of the apartment on
January 27, 1989 as well as an affidavit from the superintendent,
which was offered to prove that the other conditions were repaired.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject
apartment. The inspection was conducted on March 6, 1990 and
revealed that the northwest bedroom ceiling and bathroom ceiling
were peeling paint and plaster. The inspector also reported that
there was no evidence of a defective toilet and no evidence of low
water pressure in the bathroom.
The Administrator issued an order on March 23, 1990 wherein a
rent reduction of an amount equal to the most recent guideline
adjustment was ordered based on the report of the inspector. On
July 23, 1992 the Administrator issued an amended order wherein the
order was modified to reflect the fact that the tenant was rent
controlled. The Administrator ordered a $10.00 per month rent
reduction effective April 1, 1990, based on the report of the
inspector. The original order was affirmed in all other respects.
On appeal the owner provides a copy of the Administrator's
original order and states that the order is wrong because the
tenant is rent controlled. The owner also states that the roof had
been vandalized, that this vandalism caused leaks which resulted in
the peeling paint and plaster in the bedroom and bathroom and that
the conditions were repaired. The owner attaches documentation to
the petition in the form of a letter and an affidavit from a
waterproofing company regarding repairs made to the roof on April
16, 1990, the same invoice for painting on January 27, 1989 that
was submitted below, an affidavit attesting to the fact that the
apartment was painted again on April 20, 1990 and a response filed
by the tenant on October 26, 1989 to the owner's application for a
rent increase based on the installation of major capital
improvements wherein the tenant objected to the application. The
petition was served on the tenant on June 11, 1990.
After careful review of the evidence in the record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.
With regard to the owner's statement that the subject tenant
is rent controlled, the Commissioner notes that the issuance of the
amended order, on July 23, 1992, corrected the defect in the
original rent reduction order issued by the Administrator.
With regard to the balance of the owner's petition, the owner
states that he inspected the roof and made repairs after the tenant
notified him that the DHCR inspector was present, investigating the
complaint. However, the owner was served with the complaint and
filed an answer March 28, 1989. It is clear that the owner was on
notice of the conditions and the need to correct them. Therefore,
the alleged repairs done after the original order was issued on
March 23, 1990 cannot be considered by the Commissioner in
determining whether the order was correctly issued based on the
record at the time of issuance.
Pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations the
Administrator may reduce the rent based on a finding of decreased
services. Repairs and maintenance are included within the
definition of required services. The Commissioner finds that the
Administrator based this determination on the entire record
including the results of the on-site physical inspection described
above. The order here under review is affirmed, as amended.
The Commissioner notes that the owner applied for and was
granted rent restoration in an order bearing Docket No GC620027OR.
THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent and Eviction Regulations for
New York City it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, affirmed.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA