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.:ED210261RO
200 Highland Blvd. Realty Co., RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
200 Highland Blvd.
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed a timely petition for administrative
review of an order issued on April 23, 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 October 21, 1989 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
In answer, the owner denied the allegations and/or otherwise
asserted that all repairs were done.
On March 30, 1990, an inspection of the subject apartment was
conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
By an order dated April 23, 1990, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that it was not
notified of the complaint; and that it was not apprised of the
DHCR mailed a copy of the petition to the tenant.
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 owner's petition does not establish any basis to
modify or revoke the Administrator's determination based on the
March 30, 1990 inspection which confirmed the existence of defective
conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The allegation that the owner was not notified of the complaint is
belied by the record which establishes that the owner was properly
served a copy of the complaint; and that said owner did answer the
complaint without raising any issue as to the vagueness of the
complaint, but merely denying the complaint's allegations and/or
otherwise stating that repairs were done.
The allegation that the owner should have been forwarded a copy of
the inspection report is without merit. Due process does not require
that an owner who has been served with a complaint be given notice
of the inspection or the actual inspection results; and the courts
have upheld this procedure (Empress Manor Apartments v. NYSDHCR,
538 NYS 2d 49, 147 AD 2d 642, February 21, 1989).
The status of the owner's rent restoration applications is as
follows: EE210141OR denied on January 30, 1991 and FC210139OR
granted on August 26, 1991.
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.
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA