EE 810218 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.: EE 810218 RO
2 NORTH STREET CORPORATION, OWNER,
DRO DOCKET NO.: MDG 810225-S
TENANT: LINA DI MAGGIO
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On May 11, 1990, the above-named petitioner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on April 10, 1990
by the Rent Administrator, 55 Church Street, White Plains, New
York concerning the housing accommodation known as 2 North
Street, Mount Vernon, New York, Apartment B-1 wherein the
Administrator determined that there had been a decrease in
services and reduced the rent to the level in effect prior to the
last guideline rent increase.
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.
The tenant initiated this proceeding on July 24, 1989 by filing a
complaint of a decrease in services, alleging numerous defective
conditions. The tenant requested a rent reduction.
A copy of the complaint was served on the owner.
In answer to the complaint, the owner indicated that there had
been no decrease in services.
The tenant, in reply, contradicted the owner's response.
On March 14, 1990, a physical inspection of the subject premises
was conducted by a staff member of the Division of Housing and
Community Renewal (DHCR). The inspector reported, among other
1) the walls of the entire apartment had cracks
and were soiled;
2) there were loose and missing tiles in the
3) an extreme hazard was presented by cabinets
sinking on one wall; and
EE 810218 RO
4) the kitchen floor was warped.
Based on the foregoing inspection, the Administrator determined
that there had been a decrease in services and reduced the rent
to the level in effect prior to the last rent guideline
In the appeal, the owner contends that the Division has no
jurisdiction because the tenant is a Section 8 Tenant. The owner
states that the amount of the reduction is ambiguous since the
rent paid is determined by HUD and not by rent guidelines.
The owner also states that all repair work has been completed.
In answer to the petition, the tenant asserts that only some of
the necessary repair work has been completed.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The purpose of an appeal is to correct any error of law or fact
in the Administrator's order. The Commissioner notes that the
petitioner herein did not raise the issue of the Section 8
subsidy for consideration in the proceeding before the Rent
Administrator. Therefore, it is inappropriate to consider this
issue de novo in this appeal. However, the Commissioner notes
that the receipt of a Section 8 subsidy does not deprive a tenant
of the protection of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act.
With respect to the ordered guideline decrease this reduction
should be applied proportionately to that portion of the rent
paid by the tenant.
Pursuant to Section 2503.4, a tenant may apply for a reduction of
the legal regulated rent and the Division may reduce the rent
where it is found that the owner has failed to maintain services.
A physical inspection in the case confirmed that services were
not being maintained. Accordingly, the Commissioner finds that
the Administrator properly reduced the rent.
If the facts so warrant, the owner may apply for a restoration of
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Emergency Tenant Protection Act
and the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied,
and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
EE 810218 RO