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.:ED410239RO
Harvey Bernstein, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
51 East Houston Street
New York, NY
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named owner filed and perfected a timely petition for
administrative review of an order issued on March 26, 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 November 4, 1988 by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain various
services in the subject apartment.
In an answer filed on December 5, 1988, the petitioner-owner denied
the allegations and otherwise asserted in substance that services
are being provided and maintained.
On February 6, 1990, a physical inspection of the subject apartment
was conducted by a DHCR staff member who confirmed the existence of
these defective conditions:
(1) There is peeling paint and plaster on the kitchen wall
behind the stove and near the tub. A small area in the ceiling
over the tub has also peeling paint and plaster.
(2) There is a leak stain and small crack in the ceiling over
the tub in the kitchen.
(3) The floor is bumpy and uneven at the end of the tub near
the kitchen window.
(4) The kitchen faucet leaks.
(5) The bottom of the kitchen sink has worn porcelain.
(6) The kitchen cabinet doors do not close properly; the
interior of the unit is rotted and the unit is warped.
(7) The five (5) windows of the apartment are loose and allow
(8) There is no floor saddle at the kitchen entrance.
(9) The toilet bowl is defective and the base is rusty.
(10) There is no flushometer in the toilet.
(11) The bathroom pipes are not insulated.
By an order dated March 26, 1990, the Administrator directed the
restoration of services and ordered a rent reduction.
In this petition, the owner contends in substance that he had not
received the complaint and that all work was done.
In answer, the tenant asserted in substance that defective
conditions continue to exist.
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
required 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
February 6, 1990 inspection which confirmed the existence of various
defective conditions, warranting a rent reduction.
The owner's allegation that he had not received the complaint is
belied by the record establishing that he did file an answer to the
complaint and was accordingly aware of the complained-of conditions
prior to the issuance of the Administrator's order.
The owner is advised to file an application for rent restoration if
the facts so warrant.
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.
LULA M. ANDERSON