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.: EJ 710126-RO
DRO DOCKET NO.: EG 7-1-0069-OR
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On October 11, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on September 10, 1990, by the
Rent Administrator, 50 Clinton Street, Hempstead, New York, concerning
housing accommodations known as Apartment No. 4E at 380 Front Street,
Hempstead, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator determined that the
owner had failed to restore services, and, accordingly, denied the owner's
application for restoration of rent.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Rent Administrator's order was
The applicable section of the law is Section 2503.4 of the Tenant
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the issue
raised by the administrative appeal.
This proceeding was commenced by the filing, on July 12, 1990, of an
Owner's Application to Restore Rent, in which the owner stated, among
other things, that the owner has restored the services for which the rent
reduction order was issued on February 5, 1990, i.e. (1) the bathtub
required caulking; (2) the apartment needed painting; (3) there were paint
spots on the floor and cabinets; (4) the intercom was not working; (5)
there were no security guards; (6) there was evidence of roach
infestation; (7) the vents in the kitchen and bathroom were not working
properly; (8) and the bathroom and living room air conditioners were
emitting warm air.
The owner additionally stated that the painting was scheduled to be
completed on July 25, 1990, and that the tenant's statement of completed
repairs was attached. The tenant's sign-off of items 1,3,6,7 and 8 was
In answer, on July 25, 1990, the tenant stated that she had been unable to
take July 25 off from work to have the painting done; that there was still
no security guard on the premises; that the paint spots on the floor and
DOCKET NUMBER: EJ 710126-RO
walls remained; and that the intercom was still not working. The tenant
further stressed the need for security protection, including intercom and
An inspection was held at the subject apartment on August 22, 1990. That
inspection disclosed that the apartment was in need of painting; that the
floors had stains from an earlier (1988) painting; that the tenant's
apartment could not be rung via the intercom; that no security guards were
on the premises, i.e., that the conditions for which the rent reduction
had been ordered had not been corrected.
By order dated September 10, 1990, under Docket No. EG 710069-OR, the
Rent Administrator determined that, based upon the physical inspection
that found that services were not restored, the owner's application to
restore the rent based on a restoration of services should be denied.
The owner alleged in its petition (1) that the tenant denied access for
the painting of the apartment, but as of October 1990 signed off on the
paint job; (2) that the tenant never reported intercom problems to
management; (3) that security guards were never a provided service.
The tenant did not file an answer to the petition.
The Commissioner is of the opinion that this petition should be denied.
Section 2503.4 of the Tenant Protection Regulations provides, in pertinent
part, that a tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community
Renewal (DHCR) for a reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR shall
so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that the owner has
failed to maintain required services.
In the instant case, the evidence of record, including a physical
inspection conducted on August 22, 1990, disclosed that decreases in
service continued to exist, i.e., that the apartment was in need of
painting; that floors had stains from a 1988 paint job; that the tenant's
apartment could not be rung via the intercom; and that no security guards
were on the premises.
With regard to the owner's allegation that the tenant continued to deny
access for painting, but has signed off on the paint job, the Commissioner
finds that the owner has failed to document its assertion that the tenant
denied access for the paint job; the record contains letters in which the
tenant provided the dates on which she thought she would be able to
provide access, thereby evincing her willingness to provide access.
Furthermore, the owner has submitted no evidence to document the tenant's
acceptance of the paint job.
Concerning the owner's contentions that the tenant never reported
intercom problems to management and that the owner is not obligated to
provide security guards, the Commissioner finds that since the owner did
not file a petition for administrative review of the order that reduced
the rent based, among other things, on the owner's failure to provide
security guards and to provide a working intercom, the owner may not raise
these issues in this appeal of the denial of rent restoration.
DOCKET NUMBER: EJ 710126-RO
This order is issued without prejudice to the owner's again filing an
application to restore the rent based on a restoration of services, when
all services have been restored.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Tenant Protection Regulations, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and the
District Rent Administrator's order be and the same hereby is, affirmed.