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

          APPEAL OF                               DOCKET NO.:              
               RUDIN MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
                                                  RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                  DOCKET NO.:
                                   PETITIONER     CL420619S 


          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 
          constitute error.

          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 
          were necessary.

          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, 
          is affirmed.  


                                                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