STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                               92-31 UNION HALL STREET
                               JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433

          -----------------------------------X 
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE      ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                DOCKET NO.:ED110314RO     
                                                       
          Arjan Mirchandani,                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                   DOCKET NO.:CK130093B      
                                                       
                                                   SUBJECT PREMISES:
                                                      63-70 Austin St.
                                                      Rego Park, NY   
                                PETITIONER     
          -----------------------------------X                           
              

               ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

            The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative 
            review of an order issued by the Administrator reducing the rent and 
            directing restoration of services based on a finding of failure to 
            maintain required services.

            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 tenants commenced this proceeding on November 3, 1988 by filing 
            a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain 
            services in the subject building.

            On January 11, 1989, DHCR mailed a copy of the complaint to the 
            owner, with a warning that failure to file an answer within twenty 
            (20) days from said date shall be considered a default and may 
            result in a determination based on the record as presently before 
            DHCR.

            The owner failed to respond.

            Thereafter, an inspection of the building was conducted on June 27, 
            1989 by a DHCR inspector who confirmed the existence of defective 
            conditions.

            On October 17, 1989, DHCR mailed another copy of the complaint to 
            the owner, with a warning that failure to file an answer within 
            twenty (20) days from said date shall be considered a default and 
            may result in a determination based on the record as presently 
            before DHCR.

            The owner failed to respond.

            On January 25, 1990, an inspection of the building was conducted by 
            a DHCR staff member who again confirmed the existence 
            ED110314RO









            of defective conditions.

            In a late answer filed on March 20, 1990, the owner asserted that he 
            "completed the entire job."

            By an order dated April 10, 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.

            On June 11, 1990, DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenants.

            After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that 
            the petition should be denied.

            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 
            services.

            The record establishes that the owner was amply notified of the 
            tenants' complaint, but failed to diligently contest the allegations 
            in the complaint; and the owner's late answer in the proceeding 
            below was an unsubstantiated and bare allegation that the work was 
            done. The owner's petition does not establish any basis to modify or 
            revoke the Administrator's determination based on the June 27, 1989 
            and January 25, 1990 inspections which confirmed the existence of 
            defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction. Accordingly, the 
            order appealed from was in all respects proper and is hereby 
            sustained.

            The owner's rent restoration application (FG130093OR) was denied on 
            April 16, 1992.

            The automatic stay of the retroactive rent reduction that resulted 
            by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this 
            Order and Opinion.

            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, denied, and 
            that the Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.



            ISSUED:



                                                                          
                                                  JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                                  Deputy Commissioner