Docket Number: FD-110036-RO
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.: FD 110036-RO
JUDY MURDAUGH JACKSON, DISTRICT RENT ADMIN.
DOCKET NO.: ZED 110535-S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On April 5, 1991, the above-named owner filed a timely Petition for
Administrative Review of an order issued on March 4, 1991,
concerning t e 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.
On April 13, 1990, the tenant commenced this proceeding by filing
a complaint asserting that the owner had failed to maintain certain
services in the subject apartment.
On May 8, 1990 and December 11, 1990, the owner was put on notice of
the tenant's complaint.
In its answer filed on January 4, 1991, the owner asserted that all
required repairs had been completed.
Thereafter on February 15, 1991, an inspection of the subject
apartment was conducted by a DHCR inspector, who confirmed the
existence of defective conditions, i.e.:
"1. There are signs of vermin infestation in the
2. Dishwasher not working properly."
The inspector noted that "(s)ince it was the winter season,
inspector could not check the air-conditioner."
On March 4, 1991, the Rent Administrator directed restoration of
these services and further ordered a reduction of the stabilization
In its petition for administrative review, the owner states, in
substance, that repairs have been performed and that the owner
should have been notified of the inspection date and/or the
After careful consideration, the Commissioner is of the opinion that
Docket Number: FD-110036-RO
the petition should be denied.
The owner's petition does not make clear whether it is the owner's
contention that repairs had been made before the apartment was
inspected or the order was issued, or whether the contention is that
repairs were made following the issuance of the Rent Administrator's
order. If it is the former, then the owner's allegation is belied
by the report of the agency inspector. If it is the latter, then
the Rent Administrator's order reducing the rent was nevertheless
correct when issued, and this order is issued without prejudice to
the owner filing an application for restoration of services.
As to the owner's allegation that it was entitled to be notified of
the inspection date and/or inspection results, the Commissioner
notes that due process does not require giving the owner notice of
the inspection date and or the inspection results. Receipt by the
owner of the tenant's complaint is sufficient notice.
The Commissioner also notes that the owner was mailed the tenant's
complaint on May 8, 1990 and December 11, 1990; and that the owner
filed an answer on January 4, 1991. The owner had ten months from
the date of the service of the tenant's complaint until the issuance
of the Administrator's order to investigate the tenant's complaint
and to make the necessary repairs, but the owner failed to do so.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the District Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby