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
APPEALS OF DOCKET NO.:
PETITIONER DC 210177-S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On June 27, 1990, the above-named owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review against an order issued on June 22, 1990,
by a Rent Administrator concerning the housing accommodations
known as 3060 Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, Apartment 3-S,
wherein the Administrator determined that the owner had not main-
tained services and accordingly reduced the rent.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record
and has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by the petition.
The issue on appeal is whether the Administrator's order was cor-
The applicable law is Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization
The tenant originally commenced the proceedings on March 9, 1989,
by filing a complaint of a decrease in apartment services com-
plaining that the owner had failed to install window screens in
On March 29, 1989 a copy of the complaint was sent to the owner
at the address given by the tenant in the complaint. The owner
did not respond.
As based on the findings of an inspection of the tenant's apart-
ment, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under review,
finding that a diminution of services had occurred, and reducing
In his petition, the owner calls for the revocation of the
Administrator's order because he had not been served with the
complaint and received no notice of the proceeding until the
issuance of the reduction order. The owner states that the
address on the complaint was incorrect, as the owner had left
that location five years before and informed all tenants about it
at the time.
The tenant claims in his answer that the owner was aware of the
situation because he had complained about the missing window
screens many times.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be
The Commissioner notes that the record's copies of the notice and
answer forms that accompanied the tenant's complaint do not con-
tain the owner's correct name and address, and thus support the
owner's claim that he was never notified of the proceeding prior
to the issuance of the order. Also tending to support the owner
are the Division's own records of building ownership, which show
a change of address in 1987. The tenant's allegation that he had
personally requested the screens from the owner, even if
accepted without question, cannot be considered sufficient to
meet the due process requirements of timely and proper notice of
this proceeding. Equally insufficient is the possibility put
forth by the tenant that the owner had his mail forwarded to his
new address; service of the notice cannot be presumed if the
record contains no evidence to document it.
The Commissioner notes that the tenant concedes in his answer
that he has received screens for all of his windows.
Accordingly the Commissioner finds that the order under review
should be revoked.
Should there be arrears owing to the owner as a result of this
Order and Opinion the tenant shall be permitted to pay off such
arrears in six (6) equal monthly installments beginning with the
first rent payment date after issuance of this Order. Should the
tenant vacate, said arrears shall be payable immediately.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted
and that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same
hereby is, revoked.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA