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.:
RUDIN MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On March 16, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a peti-
tion for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on March 1,
1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing accommoda-
tion known as 295 Central Park West, New York, New York, Apartment
PH-A, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in rent
was warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.
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 issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On December 27, 1988, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that
the owner failed to maintain services.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint on April 28, 1989,
alleging that certain repairs were necessary but that the tenant
was not providing access to its workers.
A Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) inspection
conducted on January 3, 1990, revealed that:
1. Weather stripping replacement needed - the
current one allows air seepage.
2. Living room, dining room and kitchen window
sills are water-stained and the ceilings are
also water damaged and peeling paint and
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the Rent Administrator failed to consider its answer to the
tenant's complaint; that it was not given an opportunity to consult
with the DHCR inspector; that the Rent Administrator failed to
conduct a hearing and that the tenant denied access to its workers,
thus denying it an opportunity to make necessary repairs.
The petition was served on the tenant on May 21, 1990, and on June
6, 1990, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that
access has not been unreasonably denied to the owner's workers and
that the repairs have not been corrected.
After careful consideration of the entire evidence of record, the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
For rent controlled tenants, Section 2202.16 of the Rent and
Eviction Regulations provides that a finding that an owner failed
to maintain essential services may result in an order of decrease
in maximum rent, in an amount determined by the discretion of the
Rent Administrator, to reflect the decreased rental value because
of the decrease in services.
Concerning the petitioner-owner's argument that the Administrator
failed to give it notice of the inspection or the results, the
Commissioner finds that due process does not require that the owner
be informed that inspections are to take place or that it be sent
copies of the reports with an opportunity to rectify the condition
or to respond. The owner had adequate notice from the tenant's
complaint of conditions requiring its attention.
The Commissioner also does not find any evidence in the file that
the Rent Administrator disregarded the owner's answer to the
complaint. The answer was filed on April 28, 1989, and was given
appropriate consideration by the Rent Administrator.
As to the owner's claim that the Rent Administrator should have
conducted a hearing, the Commissioner finds that the scheduling of
hearings is a matter for the sole discretion of the Administrator.
The Rent Administrator's failure to conduct a hearing does not
The owner has consistently raised the issue of the tenant's
unreasonable refusal to provide access to its workers but a review
of the record shows that paragraph two of the owner's answer of
April 28, 1989, clearly states that a recent inspection of the
apartment by the new superintendent indicated that some repairs
Furthermore, the petition on appeal states that the superintendent
got permission to do repair work and, in fact performed certain
repair work in November 1989.
These statements belie the owner's non-access claims and support
the conclusion that the owner's workers were provided access to the
subject apartment at various times.
A review of the record before the Administrator clearly shows that
the owner did not submit any evidence that the deficiencies noted
on the inspector's report were completed in a workmanlike manner at
the time of the DHCR's inspection or at any time prior to the
issuance of the Administrator's order.
The Commissioner finds that the Administrator properly based his
determination on the entire record, including the results of the
on-site physical inspection conducted on January 3, 1990 and that
pursuant to Section 2202.16 of the Rent Eviction Regulations a rent
reduction reflecting the reduced rental value of the accommodation
because of the decreased services was warranted.
Accordingly, the Commissioner further finds that the owner has
offered insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
The Division's records reveal that the owner's rent restoration
application (Docket No. GF420101OR) was granted in part on
September 15, 1993.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the Rent and Evic-
tion Regulations for New York, it is
ORDERED, that the owner's petition be, and the same hereby is,
denied, and the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby,
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA