FJ110392RO
                                  STATE OF NEW YORK
                      DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
                            OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
                                     GERTZ PLAZA
                                  92-31 UNION HALL
                                  JAMAICA, NY 11433





          ------------------------------------x
          IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE          ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
          APPEAL OF                                    DOCKET NO.:
                                                       FJ110392RO
                    Markland Estates, Inc.,
                                                       RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
                                                       DOCKET NO.:
                                                       ED110513S

                                   PETITIONER
          ------------------------------------x

            ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

          On October 31, 1991, the above-named Petitioner-owner filed a 
          petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on 
          October 18, 1991, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the housing 
          accommodation known as 89-38 164th Street, Jamaica, N.Y., Apt. 1-H, 
          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 
          issue raised by the administrative appeal.

          The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced 
          the rent of the subject apartment.

          On April 26, 1990, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the 
          owner failed to maintain services in the subject apartment.

          The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging that all 
          necessary repairs will be done on May 29, 1990.  






          A DHCR inspection conducted on October 2, 1991, revealed that 
          although several services were being maintained, the following 












          FJ110392RO

          services were not being maintained:

                    (1)  Floor covering/apartment wide.
                    (2)  Closet door defective
                    (3)  Vermin control apartment
                    (4)  Refrigerator freezer door 

          On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that 
          all repairs were made in June, 1990; that the tenant failed to 
          request a rent reduction; that the Rent Administrator erred by 
          granting a rent reduction for items not specifically stated in the 
          complaint and that the DHCR failed to give it notice of the 
          inspection.

          The petition was served on the tenant on December 23, 1991 and on 
          January 8, 1992, the tenant filed an answer to the petition stating 
          that some repairs were made but that in the main the work was 
          completed in an unworkmanlike manner.

          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.

          Concerning the petitioner-owner's argument that the Administrator 
          failed to give it notice of the inspection or the results, the 
          Commissioner finds that due process does not require that the owner 
          be informed that inspections are to take place or that it be sent 
          copies of the reports with an opportunity to rectify the condition 
          or to respond.  The owner had adequate notice from the tenant's 
          complaint of conditions requiring its attention.

          The Commissioner has also considered and rejects the petitioner's 
          claim on appeal that the required repairs were made prior to the 
          issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.

          A copy of the tenant's complaint was mailed to the owner on 
          May 10, 1990, and the Rent Administrator's order was issued on 
          October 18, 1991.
          It is apparent that the owner had approximately seventeen (17) 
          months to attend to the complained-of conditions, but had failed to 
          do so prior to the issuance of the Rent Administrator's order.  The 
          inspector's report clearly showed that even if the owner attempted 






          FJ110392RO

          to correct the conditions prior to the issuance of the Rent 
          Administrator's order, it had failed to do so in a workmanlike 
          manner.

          The Commissioner also finds that the owner's contentions on appeal 
          that the Rent Administrator erred by granting a rent reduction for 
          items not specified in the complaint and that the tenant failed to 
          request a reduction to be without basis.

          A review of the record shows that the tenant's complaint adequately 
          specified all items noted in the Rent Administrator's rent 
          reduction order.  The tenant's complaint specified that the owner 
          failed, among other things, to repair broken floor tiles in the 
          bathroom and the inspector's report, dated October 2, 1991, 
          revealed that broken floor tiles were in evidence.

          Moreover, a review of the tenant's complaint shows, contrary to the 
          owner's allegations, that the tenant requested a rent reduction.

          The fact that the owner produced complaint copies without such a 
          request designation is not dispositive.

          Accordingly, the Commissioner finds, that the Administrator 
          properly based his determination on the entire record, including 
          the results of the on-site physical inspection conducted on October 
          2, 1991, and that pursuant to Section 2523.4(a) of the Code, the 
          Administrator was mandated to reduce the rent upon determining that 
          the owner had failed to maintain services.

          Upon a restoration of services the owner may separately apply for 
          a rent restoration.

          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.











          THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions 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, 
          affirmed. 












          FJ110392RO




          ISSUED:





                                                                     
                                             JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA
                                             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