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

          APPEAL  OF                              DOCKET NOS.: EF110093RO 
          RICHARD ALBERT                          RENT
                                                  ADMINISTRATOR'S DOCKET 
                                                  NO.: DF110658S 

               On June 1, 1990 the above named petitioner-owner filed a 
          Petition for Administrative Review against an order of the Rent 
          Administrator issued on May 16, 1990. The order concerned housing 
          accommodations known as Apt 2B located at 93-41 222nd Street, 
          Queens Village, N.Y.  The Administrator directed restoration of 
          services and ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain 
          required services.  

               The Commissioner has reviewed the record and carefully 
          considered that portion relevant to the issues raised by this 

               This proceeding was commenced on June 9, 1989 by the filing of 
          a Statement of Complaint of Decrease in Services wherein it was 
          alleged, in sum, that the owner was not maintaining certain 
          required apartment services including the fact that the apartment 
          was infested.

               The owner was served with a copy of the complaint and afforded 
          an opportunity to respond. The owner filed a response on August 11, 
          1989 but did not address the issue of infestation in the apartment.
               The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the subject 
          apartment.  The inspection was conducted on April 25, 1990.  The 
          inspector reported evidence of roach infestation in the apartment.  
          All other conditions cited in the complaint were found to have been 

               The Administrator issued the order being appealed on May 16, 
          1990 and ordered a rent reduction of an amount equal to the 
          percentage of the most recent guidelines adjustment for the lease 
          commencing prior to August 1, 1989.

               On appeal the owner states, in relevant part, that the 


          complaint made no mention of roach infestation, that the apartment 
          has been serviced by a licensed exterminator and that notice of the 
          inspection and the right to be present should have been allowed. 
          The petition was served on the tenant on July 9, 1990. 

               The tenant filed a response on July 14, 1990 and stated, in 
          sum, that the order being appealed should be affirmed based on the 
          inspector's report.

                    After careful review of the evidence in the record, the 
          Commissioner is of the opinion that the petition should be denied.

               Pursuant to Section 2523.4 of the Rent Stabilization Code, a 
          tenant may apply to the DHCR for a rent reduction based on the 
          owner's failure to maintain services and the Administrator shall 
          reduce the rents upon finding that such services have not been
          maintained.  The Code defines required services to be those 
          services required to be maintained on the applicable base date, 
          including repairs and maintenance.

               The Commissioner finds that the Administrator based this 
          determination on the entire record including the results of the on- 
          site physical inspection described above.  The owner is not correct 
          in stating that the complaint made no mention of the infestation 
          condition. A review of the record reveals that this condition was 
          described in the complaint.

               The owner's contention that the apartment is adequately 
          serviced by a licensed exterminator is rebutted by the results of 
          the physical inspection described above.  The DHCR inspector who 
          conducted the inspection is neither a party to this proceeding nor 
          an adversary and the report of the inspector is entitled great 
          probative weight.  Finally, the Commissioner has consistently held 
          that there is no right to notice of an inspection nor is there a 
          right to be present and be informed of the inspector's report.  The 
          courts have upheld this policy (see Empress Manor Apts. v. DHCR 538 
          N.Y.S.2d 49 [2nd Dept., 1989]).
          The order being appealed is affirmed.

               The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement which 
          resulted from the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance 
          of this order and opinion.  The Commissioner notes that the owner's 
          rent restoration application (Docket No. GL110145OR) has been 
          granted by the Administrator.

               THEREFORE, pursuant to the Rent Stabilization Law and Code, it 


               ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, 
          denied, and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same 
          hereby is, affirmed.


                                             LULA M. ANDERSON  
                                             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