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.:ED110301RO
Krumholz Associates, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
45-25 39 Place
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW IN
PART AND MODIFYING ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on March 30, 1990 concerning the housing
accommodations relating to the above-described docket number.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and has
carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The tenant commenced this proceeding on March 28, 1989 by filing a
complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on May 11, 1989, the owner asserted in substance
that all repairs were done, attaching a copy of a statement signed
by the tenant indicating so.
On March 19, 1990, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
By an order dated March 30, 1990, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that all work was
done; and that the tenant acknowledged completion of repairs before
the inspection and the order's issuance.
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
the petition should be granted in part and the Administrator's order
Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, DHCR is
authorized to order a rent reduction upon application by a tenant
where it is found that an owner has failed to maintain required
Based on the tenant's signed statement that all repairs had been
completed, the owner could reasonably assume that no further action
was required and that the proceeding before DHCR would be terminated
without a rent reduction. Due process requires that the tenant's
statement, if submitted by the owner, be served on the tenant and if
challenged, that the owner be advised that the complaint was not
In the instant case, the inspection revealed that contrary to the
owner's allegations and the statement allegedly signed by the
tenant, the necessary repairs were not done and could not possibly
have been done properly in May 1989 if ten months later the bathroom
ceiling and wall were leaking, the bathroom wall had defective
plaster falling off, the bathroom sink was dripping water from the
faucet, the stove was defective in that not all the burners worked
and the oven did not work, and the apartment had peeling paint and
plaster throughout. A rent reduction for these conditions is
required pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code,
but because of the failure to verify the tenant's signature on the
signed work order or to advise the owner that the complaint was not
being terminated, the effective date of the rent reduction is hereby
modified to April 1, 1990, the first of the month following issuance
of the Administrator's order, when the owner had actual knowledge
that the complaint was still active and that DHCR's inspection
revealed the need for additional repairs.
The owner's rent restoration application (EE110025OR) was denied on
January 4, 1991.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code
and Operational Bulletin 84-1, it is
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted in
part, and that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
modified in accordance with this Order and Opinion.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA