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.:
GUMLEY HAFT, RENT ADMINISTRATOR'S
PETITIONER FD 410287-S
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
IN PART TO THE EXTENT OF REMANDING PROCEEDING TO RENT
On August 6, 1991, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
Petition for Administrative Review of an order of the Rent
Administrator issued July 2, 1991. The order concerned housing
accommodations known as Apartment 24-J located at 2 Lincoln
Square, New York, New York, wherein the Rent Administrator
ordered a rent reduction for failure to maintain services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion relevant to the issues
raised by this appeal.
The tenant commenced this proceeding by filing a statement of
Complaint of Decrease in Services on April 1, 1991. The tenant
alleged the following service deficiencies:
* Broken Windows
* No smoke alarm
* No appliances
* Broken Floor
* Defective electrical outlets
* Peeling paint and plaster
* Broken kitchen counters
* Leaking faucets
* Broken bathroom tiles
* Shower not working
* Broken venetian blinds
* Front door in need of repair
The tenant stated that she had reported these conditions but the
owner made no attempt at repairing.
The owner was served with a copy of the tenant's complaint on
April 17, 1991 and afforded twenty-one (21) days to respond
thereto. On May 8, 1991, the owner, through counsel, responded
to the complaint and requested an extension of the time to answer
the complaint until June 11, 1991.
The Administrator ordered a physical inspection of the premises.
That inspection took place June 3, 1991, a d revealed the fol-
1. Kitchen: - No stove and no refrigerator.
2. Bathroom: - Missing tile soap dish and
missing towel rack.
3. Venetian blinds - (2) defective.
4. Living Room - (2) outlets defective - missing
plates - (1) broken.
5. Bedroom - (2) windows - do not close properly
(gap at bottom sash).
6. Kitchen - Countertop broken.
7. Floors - Floors throughout apartment are
buckled and missing tiles.
The following services were found to be maintained:
1. Apartment - No evidence of peeling paint and
plaster. Paint throughout apart-
ment is satisfactory.
2. Bathroom - Shower - no evidence of defects.
Entrance Door - No evidence of any defects.
On June 11, 1991, the owner's attorney filed an additional
request for an extension of time to answer the complaint until
July 11, 1991. The order here under review was issued July 2,
1991 and ordered an appropriate rent reduction based on the
On appeal, the owner raises three grounds for reversal of the
1. The Rent Administrator failed to afford the owner
due process of law by issuing the order herein
during the time period in which the Petitioner had
an extension of time to answer, thus depriving the
Petitioner of an opportunity to answer on the
merits prior to the issuance of an order herein.
2. The Rent Administrator erred in his determination
as noted in the petition because the tenant has
consistently failed to afford the petitioner
access to make all required repairs in order to
gain the un-warranted benefit of rent reduction.
3. The Rent Administrator erred as noted in the PAR
because the tenant damaged or removed all items
noted as deficient in the order in order to gain a
rent reduction from the Division.
The owner also request a prospective stay of the Administrator's
order pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2529.12. The tenant did not file a re
After careful review of the evidence in the recor , the Commis-
sioner is of the opinion that this petition should be granted to
the extent of remanding the proceeding to the Administrator.
The Commissioner finds it unnecessary to rule as to the second
and third grounds put forth above. With regard to the first
ground, i.e. due process denial for issuing the order here under
review during the extension of time to answer, the Commissioner
notes that the Division was in receipt of both the June 11, 1991
and July 11, 199l extension requests. Accordingly, it was error
for the Administrator to issue the order here under review before
the owner's time to respond had elapsed. The Administrator's act
constituted a violation of due process. The Commissioner deems
it necessary to remand this proceeding to the Administrator to
afford the owner the opportunity to answer the complaint.
The Commissioner notes the owner's request for a prospective stay
pursuant to 9 NYCRR 2529.12. Due to the serious nature of the
allegations in this proceeding as confirmed by the
inspection(i.e. missing kitchen appliances, and buckling floors)
that request is denied.
The Administrator's order remains in effect until a new order is
issued on remand.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and
Code, it is,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, granted
in part, and that this proceeding is remanded to the Adminis-
trators for further processing consistent with this Order and
JOSEPH A. D'AGOSTA