STATE OF NEW YORK
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          ----------------------------------x     S.J.R. NO.:  6790  Deemed
                                                  DOCKET NO.:   
                   MORRIS RUBIN,                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S      
                                                  DOCKET NO.:

                                       IN PART

          On May 24, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a petition 
          for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on May 3, 1990, 
          by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommodation 
          known as 110-20 73rd Road, Forest Hills, New York, Apartment 1-H, 
          wherein the Administrator revoked a previous order restoring the 
          rent under Docket No. DB110111OR and ordered a rent reduction.

          Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed a petition pursuant to 
          Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, deeming it's 
          petition denied.  The Article 78 petition was withdrawn pursuant to 
          a stipulation in which the Division agreed to issue a decision with 
          sixty days of March 17, 1993.

          The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and 
          has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the 
          issues raised by the administrative appeal.

          On November 22, 1989, the Administrator issued an order restoring 
          the rent for the subject apartment which had been reduced in Docket 
          No. CA110636S.  That order was modified by the Commissioner's order 
          and opinion issued in Docket No. DB110082RT wherein the failure to 
          provide window locks was added as a basis for the rent reduction.  
          By letter dated November 26, 1989, the tenant advised that the 
          Administrator had erred in restoring the rent because although 
          replastering was done on June 3, 1989 and again on November 22, 
          1989, the date the order was issued, the cause of the leak has 
          never been properly corrected.  The tenant also asserted that the 
          rent restoration should not be effective April 1, 1989 when the 
          Division's own inspector found that repairs were not done properly


          as recently as october 17, 1989.  The tenant stated that the rent 
          should not be restored at all until a reinspection by the Division 
          confirms the completion of the work.  On January 12, 1990, the 
          Administrator served notice of the reopening of the proceeding upon 
          the parties. The owner was requested to advise the agency of 
          whether the services had been restored and to give the date of 
          completion of the repairs.  On January 23, 1990, the owner 
          responded to the agency's notice stating that the order restoring 
          the rent was correct and that any other complaints or subsequent 
          inspections are irrelevant.  The owner further stated that repairs 
          were made in the tenant's apartment on November 22, 1989, access 
          having been refused by the tenant on an earlier date.

          An inspection of the premises was conducted by a Division employee 
          on April 16, 1990 and confirmed that plastering repairs in the 
          living room had been done in an unworkmanlike manner.

          On May 3, 1990 the Administrator issued the order here under review 
          revoking the rent restoration which had been granted under Docket 
          No. DB110111OR and reduced the legal regulated rent by one 
          guideline effective April 1, 1989.  The order also modified the 
          order issued in Docket No. CA110636S to add the absence of window 
          locks, which allow the window to be locked in an open position, as 
          a condition warranting rent reduction.

          In the PAR the owner requests a copy of the tenant's November 26, 
          1989 correspondence with the agency.  He mistakenly refers to it as 
          the letter of November 28, 1989 and says that he was not given this 
          information or an opportunity to respond and that he had requested 
          it in the proceeding below.  He further requests copies of all 
          agency correspondence to and from a city councilman who made 
          inquiry on behalf of the tenant and to whom a copy of the Adminis- 
          trator's order was sent.

          A copy of the PAR was served on the tenant on July 2, 1990.  On 
          July 18, 1990 the tenant advised that the owner's PAR should be 
          denied and the rent not restored until the owner has complied with 
          the rent reduction order, that correspondence with the councilman 
          is irrelevant, and that the November 26, 1989 letter essentially 
          requested reopening of the matter which was granted.  The tenant 
          further advised that there have been recurring water leaks, and 
          that the owner has failed to comply with the Administrator's order 
          requiring the owner to provide an adequate substitute security 
          system for the tenant's windows.


          In reply to the tenant's answer and various submissions, the owner 
          states that he does not know the facts and asks for copies of all 
          correspondence pertaining to the matter that was either received by 
          this office or issued from it, that his PAR should be granted 
          because when "something needs to be done [in tenant's apartment], 
          it is done", and that tenant has purchased her own window gates and 
          therefore the window lock issue is moot.

          The Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be 
          granted in part.

          Section 2527.8 of the Rent Stabilization Code allows the Division, 
          upon the application of either party and upon notice to all parties 
          affected to revoke an order issued by it.  The Commissioner finds 
          that the owner was given adequate notice and an opportunity to be 
          heard on the reopening of the Administrator's order restoring the 
          rent.  However, the notice failed to inform the owner of the 
          Administrator's intention to modify the rent reduction order in 
          Docket No. CA110636S.  The Order therefore, was not a proper means 
          for the modification of the rent reduction order, inasmuch as the 
          notice to the owner merely proposed to consider the order issued 
          under Docket No. DB110111OR and provided no notification of a 
          proceeding to reconsider the rent reduction order in Docket No. 

          From time to time, this agency is called upon to supply information 
          to a public official making inquiry on behalf of a constituent.  In 
          the instant case, the correspondence was not evidence relied on by 
          the Administrator in determining the proceeding and consequently 
          the agency had no obligation to serve it on the opposing party in 
          this case.

          The Commissioner notes that the rent reduction order, which is 
          herein found to have been improperly modified by the order 
          hereunder review, has been modified by the Commissioner's Order and 
          Opinion issued in Docket No. DB110082RT.  Failure to provide window 
          locks which would allow the tenant to lock the windows in an open 
          position, was added as a basis for the rent reduction, and is a 
          condition that the owner must correct in order for restoration of 
          rent to be granted.

          The Commissioner also notes that the owner's subsequent rent resto- 
          ation applications have been denied (Docket Nos. EE110178OR and 
          FL110103OR).  The owner is advised to file another application when 
          all repairs have been completed.

          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent Stabiliza- 
          tion Law and Code, it is

          ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in 
          part, and the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, 
          affirmed as modified, to delete the window locks from this 


                                                JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                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