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.: EK110320RO
Thomas Gjokaj, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
: DOCKET NO.: EG110131S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On November 19, 1990, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
timely petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued
on October 22, 1990, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 91-47 88th Road, Woodhaven, N.Y.,
Apt. 3CA, wherein the Administrator determined that a reduction in
rent was warranted based upon a reduction in services.
The Rent administrator also directed full restoration of services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petition.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On July 6, 1990, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to maintain services throughout the subject apartment.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that most of
the repairs were corrected and that all other complaints will be
A DHCR inspection conducted on September 20, 1990, revealed that:
1. Bedroom window defective and unable to open and close
adequately on lock. Screen defective.
2. Bathroom window defective, large gap between tile wall
and window molding-lock defective.
3. Livingroom defective window lock.
4. Kitchen defective window lock needs caulking.
5. Bathroom sink brown water from hot and cold faucets no
stopper-faucet leaks at base of faucets.
6. Bathroom sink not secured to wall and leg supports are
7. Rear room drop ceiling panels stained.
8. Rear room wall peeling paint and plaster.
9. Foyer wall peeling paint and plaster.
10. Kitchen walls are cracked.
11. Foyer ceiling light defective.
The following services were found to be maintained.
1. Bathroom no evidence of any defects to toilet.
2. No evidence of defective apartment entrance door
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the tenant has denied him access to the subject apartment and that
the DHCR Enforcement Bureau determined in Docket Number 22,793HL
that repairs have been done.
The petition was served on the tenant on December 17, 1990, and the
tenant filed an answer to the petition stating that the service
deficiencies have existed for a long time and that the only time
access was refused was when the owner demanded payment for the
repairs and assaulted her.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
Pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Rent Stabilization Code, a
tenant may apply to the Division of Housing and Community Renewal
(DHCR) for reduction of the legal regulated rent to the level in
effect prior to the most recent guidelines adjustment, and the DHCR
shall so reduce the rent for the period for which it is found that
the owner has failed to maintain required services.
Required services are defined in Section 2520.6(r) to include
repairs and maintenance.
The record under review shows that the owner failed to raise the
"no access" issue below. In fact, his answer of August 2, 1990,
repeatedly asserts that certain service deficiencies had already
been corrected. On appeal, a letter from the owner dated September
11, 1990, also makes reference to repairs made in the subject
apartment by the building's superintendent.
On this basis, the Commissioner finds that access was previously
achieved; thus belying the owner's assertion that the tenant
constantly deprived its workers of access to the subject apartment.
Moreover, the Commissioner has considered but rejects the owner's
contention that the Enforcement Bureau's order, under Docket
22,793HL, determined that the owner made all repairs.
A review of Division records reveals that the Enforcement Bureau
determined that no further Enforcement action was warranted against
the owner because, among other things:
The remaining complaints refer to decreases in services
and do not warrant further Enforcement Bureau action.
You may if this has not already been done, file a
decrease in service complaint with your District Rent
It is apparent that no determination was made that the owner
corrected the service deficiencies.
The inspector's report clearly showed the existence of eleven (11)
service deficiencies which the owner failed to address and on this
basis, the Commissioner finds that the owner has offered
insufficient reason to disturb the Rent Administrator's
The Commissioner further finds that the Administrator properly
based his determination on the entire record, including the results
of the on-site physical inspection conducted on September 20, 1990,
and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of Code, the Administrator
was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that the owner had
failed to maintain services.
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
order and opinion.
Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for
a rent restoration.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the provision of the Rent
Stabilization Law and Code, 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,
Joseph A. D'Agosta